Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. This answer argues against governmental regulations, as the regions stop having enough beauty to attract new residents (key to the economic benefits) when the government steps in. This answer argues against the approach argued for by the Environmentalist.

Incorrect. While this answer is relevant to the determination, it's not necessary that these regions don't have economies based primarily on local industries. Even if they are based on local businesses that would be hurt by these regulations, the new businesses that move in may be more than enough to compensate for the damage to local industries. Additionally, the new businesses moving in could become local industries—it's the older" local industries that could be harmed.

Incorrect. While the argument is about these regulations helping local economies by leading to new residents who attract new businesses, the argument still works if that's a secondary effect, and there's another primary effect that helps the region's economy.

Incorrect. The argument relies on governmentally mandated protection working, not on it working better or worse than other options.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Goal — Help the economies of regions of natural beauty
Approach — Governmentally mandated environmental protections in these regions
Downside — These sometimes hurt existing businesses
Upside — Natural beauty draws more people, which attracts more businesses

Answer Anticipation:
This argument brings up a goal and an approach to reaching that goal. In justifying that goal, the argument balances some pros and some cons.

On the pro side, natural beauty can attract more residents, which also can attract new businesses. On the downside, environmental regulations can hurt existing businesses.

There are a couple of shortfalls here, though. First, the downside speaks directly to the economics of the area, so the argument is assuming that this downside is outweighed by the upside. And that upside also falls a bit short—it's an upside of having natural beauty in a region, not of having governmental regulations in a region—especially one that, as we've already noted, has a downside.

So since this argument is all about balancing out the upsides and downsides of these regulations, we should consider any answer that rules out ways that they could bring the balance against government regulations.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the balance of the positives and negatives of government regulations on the environment. And the argument does assume that these regulations will play into the attraction of new businesses—it's the only mechanism explicitly described on how they could help the economy. If a factor harmful to some older local businesses (which the regulations are noted to be) necessarily discourages other businesses from relocating, then there's reason to believe the regulations won't help the economy, thus killing the argument. This answer is therefore necessary for the argument to work and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Almost any approach in reaching a goal will have upsides and downsides, and it's the balance of those that determines the effectiveness and wisdom of that course of action.