Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. Not all claims need support—some are just premises.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't that the tourist industry doesn't coexist with environmental damage—it's that it isn't the cause of it. This answer messes up the relationship stated.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses the tourist industry as a whole, and it never discusses individuals within the tourist industry, so this Part vs. Whole answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Seaside development hurts the environment, which hurts the tourist industry
The tourist industry knows this and wouldn't hurt the seaside environment
Therefore - Environmentalists shouldn't worry about the tourist industry

Answer Anticipation:
This is a bit of a complex stimulus, but, as with all Errors in Reasoning questions, we should be on the lookout for elements or concepts that suggest specific flaws. And this one goes out of its way to bring up one that shows up frequently if not commonly.

Throughout the stimulus, there's a regular discussion of what the tourist industry "know[s]" or is "aware" of. They know that development hurts the environment; they're aware this hurts the tourist industry; they'd thus never "knowingly" hurt the seaside environment (this last one brings in an element of motive, which is also commonly relied on in flawed logic).

From this, the argument concludes that the tourist industry won't harm that environment. However, there's a gap between what people know or knowingly intend, and what really happens. Here, it's possible that the tourist industry might end up unknowingly damaging the seaside environment, and thus those concerned about such damage might have something to fear from the industry. Let's find an answer that brings up this possibility.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the error in reasoning in the argument. While the argument may establish that the tourist industry would never intend to hurt the environment, it fails to rule out the possibility that they may do so unintentionally/unknowingly, and thus there may be something to fear from their actions. This answer highlights the Perception vs. Reality flaw in the argument, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an LSAT argument starts talking about what people think/believe/know, check to see if it shifts between that and what is actually true. Additionally, when motive is suggested or hinted at ("knowingly"), check to see if that's being used to determine the outcome of an action.

Incorrect. This answer describes an argument that shifts from a Weak Premise to a stronger conclusion. However, the premises aren't about likelihood, so this answer is incorrect.