“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combi

Question

“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public. Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy, for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return, it can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) Natural resources should be used in combinations that will most greatly benefit present and future generations.

(B) Designating a wilderness area prevents any exploitation of natural resources in that area.

(C) The present and future needs of the public would best be met by designating greater numbers of wilderness areas.

(D) The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some nonfinancial needs of the public.

(E) The multiple-use philosophy holds that the future needs of the public are more important than the present ones.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Here's a close look at the passage:

First, the author  defines a term : “'Multiple use' refers to the utilization of natural resources in combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public." 
 Then, he/she  concludes  that "Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy." 
 His/her  reasoning behind that conclusion  is that "even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return, it can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site."

The question asks us for an assumption  required  by the argument. In other words, which answer choice absolutely MUST be true in order for the author's argument to hold up?

(A) uses the word "should." This is a problem because we have no idea how the author feels about how the world  should be . Instead, the author talks about how the world  actually is . He/she thinks that a certain use of land doesn't violate the "multiple-use philosophy."

It's not important to the argument to establish whether the author thinks we  should  use the "multiple-use philosophy" -- maybe so, or maybe he/she thinks that the best use of land is to burn it to a crisp, or mine it ASAP for nonrenewable resources, or whatever else. Regardless of what we  should  do with the land, the argument holds up.

Because (A) doesn't HAVE to be true, it's not an assumption required by the argument. Eliminate (A).

"Multiple-use" means that the land is used in  combinations  that will best meet the present and future needs of the public. It could be that exploiting the natural resources in a certain area WOULD best meet the needs of the public. (B) tells us that we CAN'T exploit those resources in a wilderness area, which would make it  harder  to argue that a wilderness area fits the "multiple-use" definition.

(B) actually weakens the argument, so it's not an assumption on which the argument depends. (B) is out.

The author thinks that a wilderness area qualifies under the multiple-use philosophy. However, this argument doesn't require that a  "greater number"  of wilderness areas would best met the needs of the public. The argument holds up whether just one area is designated as a wilderness area, or many more are designated that way.

Eliminate (C).

To qualify under the multiple-use philosophy, a land area needs to be used in the ways that will  best  meet the needs of the public. However, wilderness areas  do not  provide the greatest dollar return.

So, how can a wilderness area be the  best  possible use of the land if it provides a worse return than other uses would?

There must be some other factor in the equation  that allows a wilderness area to still be the best use. If we were concerned  only  with financial needs of the public, then there's no way that a wilderness area would best meet those needs.

For the author's argument to hold up, the multiple-use philosophy MUST include nonfinancial factors. So, (D) is an assumption required by the argument.

The multiple-use philosophy takes both present and future needs into account. For the argument to hold up, we don't need to compare the weight of present needs vs. the weight of future needs -- either way, a wilderness area could fit the definition.

(E) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The first sentence provides a definition of “multiple-use,” so for the purposes of this question, this term should be understood to mean, “Combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public.” We should ignore whatever other definition we might have in mind for this term. The second sentence provides both another premise (wilderness areas might not provide the greatest dollar return, but can still provide the greatest overall benefit) and the conclusion of the argument: “Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy.” Put another way, the conclusion says, “It’s possible for wilderness area to properly be called multiple use.”

The definition of multiple-use is, “Combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public.” So in order for wilderness area to properly be called multiple-use, the argument has necessarily assumed that wilderness area can best meet the present and future needs of the public. If that’s not true, then the argument makes no sense.

We’re asked to identify a Necessary Assumption. We’ve already got one in mind. That could be our answer, or anything else that must be true in order for the argument to make sense. Remember, on a Necessary Assumption question,  the opposite of the correct answer will devastate the argument .

A) No, the argument isn’t about whether natural resources “should” be used one way or another. That’s not the point.

B) No, this doesn’t matter. If this answer is untrue, it doesn’t hurt the argument at all. Maybe wilderness areas can have some exploitation of natural resources (like a limited amount of timber cutting, for example). That wouldn’t prevent the area from meeting the present and future needs of the public, whatever those are. Don’t let your own environmentalist tendencies influence your judgment here. The point isn’t what  you  want. The point is 1) understand the argument, and 2) find a necessary component of the argument. This answer is not necessary to the argument, so it’s out.

C) Again, don’t let your own judgment interfere with your analysis here. Sure, we all love wilderness areas. That’s not the point of the argument though.

D) If this answer isn’t true, it becomes, “The multiple-use philosophy takes into account no nonfinancial needs.” In other words, this philosophy cares only about money. And if that’s true, then it becomes impossible for wilderness areas—which do not provide the greatest dollar return—to “best meet the present and future needs of the public.” This is the answer, because it is a necessary  component  of the argument. If this answer is untrue, the argument fails.

E) What? This is totally speculative and has nothing to do with the argument. The argument makes no distinction between present and future needs.

Our answer is D, because it’s the only one that must be true in order for the argument to make sense.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

The stimulus concludes that designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy, even though it may not provide the greatest dollar return. Why? Because "multiple use" requires the optimal utilization of resources to meet the present and future needs of the public, which is seen as consistent with the wilderness philosophy of providing the greatest overall benefit from that site.

The two designations ("wilderness area" and "multiple use") are only consistent if we assume that meeting the present and future needs of the public factors in some non-monetary needs that can be gained from the wilderness designation. If the needs of the public were strictly financial, on the other hand, and "wilderness" use did not ensure the greatest dollar return, the two designations would be incompatible.

Answer choice (A): How natural resources  should  be used is not something the author assumes — imperatives rarely make for good necessary assumptions. Furthermore, natural resources play no role in this argument. Even if they were not to be used in a way that most greatly benefits present and future generations, wilderness designations can still be consistent with multiple use. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): If designating a wilderness area prevented any exploitation of natural resources in that area, it is even less likely that the conditions for "multiple use" would be met. This answer choice weakens the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): While this answer choice would strengthen the argument by ensuring that the needs of the public are coextensive with the philosophy behind wilderness area designations, it is not necessary that designating  greater  numbers of wilderness areas provide the optimal way to meet those needs. Even if there is a better way to meet them, the author's conclusion still holds true. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.  If the needs of the public were strictly financial and "wilderness" use did not ensure the greatest dollar return, the two designations would be incompatible and the argument would be undermined as a result.

Answer choice (E): Comparing the relative importance of future needs to present needs is irrelevant and unnecessary for the conclusion to be true. This answer choice is incorrect.

tkorzhan1995 · Answer

GMATNinja , please advice if I am correct:
(A) Natural resources should be used in combinations that will most greatly benefit present and future generations.-Correct
Conclusion about natural resources is made on the basis of Designating land as a wilderness.

(B) Designating a wilderness area prevents any exploitation of natural resources in that area.

(C) The present and future needs of the public would best be met by designating greater numbers of wilderness areas.

(D) The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some nonfinancial needs of the public.

(E) The multiple-use philosophy holds that the future needs of the public are more important than the present ones.

Gknight5603 · Answer

D ...if we negate it conclusion can't stand

Posted from my mobile device

saurabhmishrano1 · Answer

A) Natural resources should be used in combinations that will most greatly benefit present and future generations.

- This answer choice reflects the central theme of the argument, which emphasizes the utilization of natural resources to meet the needs of both present and future generations. It aligns with the notion that multiple use involves optimizing the benefits of natural resources for the public over time. However, this assumption is explicitly stated in the argument itself and does not require additional inference.

B) Designating a wilderness area prevents any exploitation of natural resources in that area.

- This answer choice presents a statement that is contrary to the argument's position. The argument suggests that designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy, implying that some level of resource utilization may still occur even within designated wilderness areas. Therefore, this assumption is not required by the argument.

C) The present and future needs of the public would best be met by designating greater numbers of wilderness areas.

- This answer choice introduces a new idea about the effectiveness of designating wilderness areas in meeting the needs of the public. However, the argument does not explicitly endorse or reject the idea of designating more wilderness areas. It focuses on the compatibility of wilderness designation with the multiple-use philosophy, rather than advocating for increasing the number of wilderness areas.

D) The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some nonfinancial needs of the public.

- This answer choice aligns with the argument's implication that the multiple-use philosophy considers factors beyond financial returns when evaluating the utilization of natural resources. It suggests that the philosophy encompasses nonfinancial needs, such as recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values, in decision-making. Therefore, this assumption is necessary for the argument because it supports the idea that wilderness designation can provide overall benefits beyond monetary returns.

E) The multiple-use philosophy holds that the future needs of the public are more important than the present ones.

- This answer choice introduces a value judgment about the importance of future needs compared to present needs, which is not explicitly addressed in the argument. The argument focuses on the balance between present and future needs without specifying the relative importance of each. Therefore, this assumption goes beyond the scope of the argument.

unraveled · Answer

“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public. Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy,  for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return, it can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site .

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) Natural resources  should be used  in combinations that will most greatly benefit present and future generations. - WRONG. 2nd best for me. However, "should" makes it look like a claim rather than an assumption.

(B) Designating a wilderness area  prevents any exploitation of natural resources in that area . - WRONG. Not necessarily true. But, even if it true,  preventing does not impacts the passage.

(C) The present and future needs of the public would best be met  by designating greater numbers of wilderness areas . -  WRONG. There is no correlation that satisfies this.

(D) The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some nonfinancial needs of the public.

(E) The multiple-use philosophy holds that the future needs of the public are  more important than  the present ones. - WRONG. One holding better than other is not a necessary condition required for the passage to hold itself. It can be otherwise or both remaining equal to each other.

So how is it possible that blue text holds its ground without violating the passage. There seems to be a gap here that must be filled to complete the passage as it is. Only A and D hold some value.

Answer D.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combi

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

“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combi

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