Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in

Question

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions. Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, 
even if such protection harms some older local industries.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends?

(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental 
protection.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.

CrackverbalGMAT · Accepted Answer

try to simplify the argument -

Premise - 
 Natural beauty --> Influx of new residents --> More businesses.

the conclusion -
 government mandated environment regulations --> Overall effect for the economy is positive (even if some local businesses are harmed)

Note that the author says that such regulations have an "overall" positive effect.

Let us look the answer options -

Option A - Incorrect.
this option basically states that such regions will attract new residents only till government regulations are imposed. That means there will not be any new residents after the regulations are imposed.
Weakens the argument.

Option B - Incorrect.
Negate this.
 "The economies of most regions of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection."

Even if they disappear, we know that there will more "new" businesses in the area because such regulations protect the environment. So, the "overall" effect on the economies of such areas might be positive.

Option C - Incorrect.
Not necessary. Even if such regulations help the economy through other more important means, this does not harm the conclusion that overall government regulations help the economy.

Option D - Incorrect.
We are not concerned with the effects of voluntary environmental regulations. We are concerned only with the effects that government mandated regulations have

Option E - Correct.
Negate this.
"A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region discourages other businesses from relocating to that region."

We already know that such regulations are harmful to some older industries (the question says "even if such protection harms some older local industries").
Hence, no new businesses. this means that there cannot be any positive overall effect on the economy. Hence, the argument falls apart.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

This is a Defender Assumption question, where the correct answer choice will protect or defend the conclusion from potentially harmful information. First, analyze the logical structure of the stimulus:

Premise: People want to live in areas of natural beauty.

Premise: As people move into those areas, businesses will be encouraged to relocate to those areas, presumably boosting local economies.

Conclusion: Governmental protection of the local environment (preserving the region’s beauty) can help the economy, even if there is some harm to older local industries.

For the conclusion to be possible, the harm to older local industries cannot discourage or adversely affect other businesses interested in relocating to that region, as there would likely be no overall economic benefit. This assumption is best expressed by answer choice (E).

Answer choice (A): Most test takers will be able to dismiss this answer choice quickly. The conditional
structure of this sentence can be expressed as follows:

NB = regions of natural beauty which are beautiful enough to attract new residents
EP = environmental protection that damages local industries

EP -->  NB

This means that if environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed in regions of natural beauty, those regions will no longer be beautiful enough to attract new residents. If this is the true, the harm to local industries would be compounded by the lack of new residents and the regions’ overall economy would be doubly harmed. This is a Weaken answer choice.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is considerably more appealing than answer choice (A) and is focused on a critical aspect of the stimulus: harm to local industries. In fact, this was the most popular answer choice among test takers attempting this exam. However, as was discussed in the evaluation of the stimulus, the determining factor in this argument is the relationship between the economic harm done to older industries vs. the economic benefit of relocating businesses when governmental protection occurs. As long as the benefit is greater than the harm, the argument remains valid (a region’s overall economy would benefit). This answer choice states that local economies are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by mandated environmental protection. Is this statement necessary for the conclusion to remain plausible? To determine the necessity of answer choice (B), negate it and evaluate the effects according to the Assumption Negation Technique: the economies of most regions of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed. Does this undermine the conclusion that overall the economy can benefit? Possibly, but not necessarily. Even if local industries are the primary economic source in a region, and these local industries are harmed, it is still entirely possible that the benefit of the new businesses that move to that region would outweigh the harm done to the local industries. If that were the case, the overall economy would still be helped and the conclusion would remain unharmed. Since negating answer choice (B) does not invalidate the conclusion, answer choice (B) is not an assumption of the argument.

Answer choice (C): The conclusion of this argument is that government protections can help the economy overall. Does the argument depend on encouraging people to move in to an area as the primary economic benefit of these protections? No. There could be several other ways in which protection benefits the local economy and determining which of the effects of protection is of primary benefit to the economy does not affect the conclusion’s validity.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice presents an alternative method for helping a region’s economy and concludes that this method is not as effective as the method given in the stimulus. Proving that governmentally mandated environmental protections are more effective than other options would be important if the argument implied that these protections were the best way to help a region’s economy. However, since the conclusion makes no such claim, this comparison is unnecessary and this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.  Answer choice (E) can be dentified as a contender because it focuses on the important relationship between older local industries and relocating businesses. As with any Assumption question, and as was seen with answer choice (B), the correct answer choice can be confirmed with the Assumption Negation Technique. If this is the correct answer choice, then negating it will render the conclusion invalid. The logical negation of this answer choice is, “A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region will discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.” If governmentally mandated environmental protection were a factor that both harmed some older local industries and discouraged other businesses from relocating to that region, then local economies would not have an overall benefit and the conclusion could not be true. Because negating answer choice (E) invalidates the conclusion, answer choice (E) is an assumption necessary for the argument.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

I was following along for a while there. But eventually, as always, I got pissed. Which is a good thing.

Premise: “Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty.” That’s very hard to argue with because it’s relative, not absolute. “Many” just means “some,” which just means “one or more.” Of course, we can all agree that there must be, of the 7 billion people on Earth, one or more people who prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. OK, nothing to argue with there. 
 
  Premise: “  often experience an influx of new residents.” Again, this is relative. “Often” just means “sometimes” which means “once or more than once.” It’s impossible to argue that this has never happened, so I am forced to agree. 
 
  Premise: “A growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions.” Again, this is relative, not absolute. It doesn’t say, “All businesses immediately always move directly to the region in question and stay there forever.” All it says is, “Here’s one factor, out of many potential factors, that might possibly cause a business to move to this area.” Can’t argue. 
 
  Conclusion: “Governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions’ economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries.”  Holy ****, what the ****?!?!  “Governmentally mandated environmental protection”? Where did  that  come from? That is insane. It’s completely unsupported by any of the premises; it just comes out of nowhere. Here are my objections: 1) Why does the environment need protecting, period? Can’t it fend for itself? (You might know this to be untrue in real life, but real life is irrelevant. There’s no premise that says, “The environment needs protecting,” so we can’t assume that’s true.) 2) Why is the  government  the best protector? Wouldn’t anyone else be able to do this better? Business interests? Nonprofits? 3) Why does the protection have to be  mandated ? Wouldn’t some sort of voluntary program work? 4) And finally, how can you conclude this will be good for the economy overall,  even if it hurts existing industry ? What if the entire local economy is built on coal mining? Is environmental protection really going to be good for the economy overall, even if it starts with everyone within 50 miles getting laid off?

It’s good to get pissed. Getting pissed helps me to 1) pay attention and 2) understand exactly what the argument is concluding, on the basis of what (shoddy, incomplete) evidence. If I’m angry, I’m prepared.

The question asks for “an assumption on which the environmentalist’s argument depends.” That sounds like a Necessary Assumption question to me. “Assumption” means “missing piece of the argument.” That’s the most important part. The answer I choose  must  strengthen the argument in some way. “Necessary” means “if it’s not true, the argument is ****.” That’s important, but not as important as the first thing. I’m looking for 1) something that strengthens the argument, and feels like a missing element of the argument, and 2) something that had  better  be true, or else the argument will fail.

To predict the answer here, I could come up with something related to any of my four objections above. 1) The environment will benefit, at least somewhat, from protection. 2) Government efforts to protect the environment would have at least some beneficial effect. 3) Mandatory protection will have beneficial effect. 4) The amount of new business moving into the area as a result of the environmental protections will outweigh any losses to existing local industry. I think all four of those are necessary assumptions, because they would all strengthen the argument and if any of them are untrue the argument will fail. Let’s see if we can find one of them in the answer choices.

A) Wait, what? I think this would actually weaken the argument. I need a strengthener.

B) This is better; it definitely strengthens the argument. But it’s not necessary, because even if the economies of most regions of natural beauty  are  based primarily on coal mining, it’s possible that the new industry moving in could be bigger than however big the coal mining industry was. This is a tough answer to get past, but it’s not the answer because it’s not necessary.

C) I’m not sure this strengthens the argument. And I’m certain it’s not necessary, because even if governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region’s economy in  other  ways, that wouldn’t hurt the argument at all.

D) Another tricky one to get past. This one does strengthen the argument, because it supports the idea that the  government  should be the one doing the protecting. But it’s not necessary, because even if other organizations would be better at protecting, the government still might be good at protecting. I need to pick an answer that, if untrue, will cause the argument to fail. This isn’t it.

E) Ahhh, this is it. If this answer is untrue, it becomes, “Any factor that is harmful to older local industries will discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.” If that’s true, then it’s  impossible  for environmental protection that harms local industry to attract new industries to the region. This is the definition of “necessary”: if it’s untrue, the argument fails. This answer also mirrors our fourth prediction, above.

Our answer is E.

This was a great question for study because it illustrates the strong relationship between Necessary Assumption questions and Weaken questions. When we read the argument, we came up with four objections. One of those weakeners, the fourth one, was directly related to the correct answer.

nitiny · Answer

(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental 
protection.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region

adityapareshshah · Answer

What's the OE? Can anyone explain how E is correct?

Madhavi1990 · Answer

Okay, if we use negation technique won't C be right?

CONCL: Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries.
CONCL 2: people moving to an area thus encourages businesses; natural beauty is cited as one of the reasons. ("Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty. Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions.")

C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region. - This is what the argument says in the beginning. The harming of older local industries is a fallout.
If we think "no" this mandate won't work, the argument falls apart.

E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region. - Yes, but isn't this an inference or fallout? It has been already established if new businesses occur in a beautiful place, it would increase overall economy - but this happens BECAUSE people move there.

Would really appreciate if E was shown as an assumption and not a fallout ! Thank you

hellosanthosh2k2 · Answer

Answer should be E.

close between B and E.

B. Negating B, argument does not fall apart, as the argument clearly says "Thus, governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall,
 even if such protection harms some older local industries.  ". So economy will still grow from new industries.

E. Negating E, argument falls apart, factor will discourage new business to get into the region and economy will not grow. Hence E

C. actually i think it sort of reverses the premise IMO, argument is seeking to establish => people prefer natural beauty region -> encourages businesses to relocate -> so if, government env protection -> then better economy, but C says government helps economy grow by encouraging more people to move into.

Thanks

Gladiator59 · Answer

Bumping up for review. A great LSAT question.

redskull1 · Answer

Ok.IMO B is wrong because of the word “primarily”.The economies could be based “ secondarily” or “ tertiarily” on old industries. It doesnt kill the argument if it is not “primarily”.

Posted from my mobile device

Ahmed9955 · Answer

As per my understanding:

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection.  
NEGATE - The economies of most regions of natural beauty  are based  primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection.
-Does it affects the conclusion?
  Pay attention  - •Was the conclusion about  SOME OLD local industries  or  ALL local industries? 
•Also as per the answer choice, we don't know whether these are   old   local industries or   new   local industries?
=> We are not clear with what type of local industries are talked about in the answer choice ?

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.
 NEGATE- A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region  discourage  other businesses from relocating to that region.[
-Affects the conclusion
if the factors affecting some older local industries also discourage other businesses from relocating to that region then economy will be dependent on what? who'll do business in these region?

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

I went with B cause I think negating E is just repeating the premise. Negate E: A factor harmful to some older local industries  will encourage  other businesses from relocating, and the premise has said "growing population  encourages  businesses to relocate" , so why E is better than B?

aletheia225 · Answer

A very well-constructed question. An alternative necessary assumption:

'The beauty of naturally beautiful regions plays a role in attracting new residents to such regions'

If beauty plays no role, environmental protection wouldn't help the economies, because the increase or upkeep of beauty in such regions wouldn't have an impact on population increases.

A_Nishith · Answer

The environmentalist's argument concludes that governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help the overall economy of those regions, even though such protection may harm some older local industries. The assumption question asks for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to hold.

Key Points of the Argument:
People prefer to live in regions of natural beauty.
Population growth encourages businesses to relocate.
Even if environmental protection harms some industries, it can still benefit the region's economy overall.
The argument assumes that the harm done to older local industries does not outweigh the benefits of attracting new residents and businesses.

Analysis of the Answer Choices:
(A) Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed.

This suggests that the environmental protection would stop people from moving in, which contradicts the environmentalist's argument. Therefore, this weakens the argument and cannot be the assumption.

(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection.

If the economy of the region heavily relies on the industries harmed by protection, the argument wouldn't hold. Thus, this option addresses a key assumption—that the harm to local industries won’t be so severe as to undermine the overall benefit to the economy. This is a strong candidate.

(C) If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region.

The argument does rely on population growth and business relocation, but this choice focuses too narrowly on the mechanism of how protection helps. It’s not necessarily about “primarily” being driven by population; the economy could benefit in other ways too.

(D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region's economy to the degree that governmentally mandated protection does.

The argument doesn't compare voluntary vs. mandated protection, so this is irrelevant.

(E) A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region.

This addresses the assumption that harming older industries won’t deter new businesses from relocating, which supports the argument. This is a strong candidate.

Conclusion: 
The argument relies on the idea that harm to local industries won’t prevent the overall economic benefit. Both (B) and (E) support this assumption, but (E) more directly addresses the concern about the relocation of businesses, which is central to the argument.

Thus, the correct answer is (E).

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards