Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 17

Incorrect. The argument isn't about what "should" happen, but rather whether a particular use of wilderness conforms to a certain principle.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't describe what such a designation means, and it notes only that it doesn't provide the "greatest" dollar return. Therefore, it's possible that such a designation allows for a small amount of natural resource exploitation, so this answer is wrong.

Incorrect. This answer choice is so close to a correct answer! It ties the action in question—designating wilderness areas—to the "multiple-use" philosophy by stating that it's related to the present and future needs of the public, and reflecting that it takes into account how they'll be best met. However, it goes a step too far in stating that the way to meet these needs is with a "greater" number of such designation. The stimulus is about whether the designation itself is consistent with "multiple use," not whether making more designations is.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
"Multiple use" means maximizing utility for today and tomorrow. Designating land as wilderness might not provide the best monetary return, but it can provide the most benefit, so it doesn't violate "multiple use."

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a lot more subtle than it may appear at first. It starts by defining a philosophy ("Multiple use refers to"), and then it pivots to the conclusion—a certain action "does not necessarily violate" that philosophy. In other words, the action is compatible with the philosophy. In order to show that two things are compatible, it only needs to be established that one doesn't prevent the other from happening. In other words, they don't contradict each other.

So this argument isn't about whether a certain action is good, or whether it should be done. It's about whether that action doesn't contradict a philosophy.

As such, let's clearly define the philosophy and the action:
(1) Philosophy - Natural resources should be used to best meet the present and future needs of the public
(2) Action (Designating wilderness areas) - Doesn't provide the best monetary return; does provide the greatest overall benefit

So this argument requires that these two things that are true of the action here don't violate the philosophy. That would translate to an answer saying that providing the best monetary return won't necessarily best meet the present/future needs of the public, or that providing the greatest overall benefit might meet those needs.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that one fact true of designating wilderness areas—that they don't provide the largest financial return—could be compatible with the multiple-use philosophy. If that philosophy does not take into account nonfinancial needs, then designating wildlife areas is incompatible with it since those financial needs are not best met by that action. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
The more philosophical/abstract questions that show up later in the section can be hard to wrap our heads around. When you come across one, slow yourself down, start with the conclusion, and make sure you understand what it's saying. Then, work backwards and figure out what information supports it.

Incorrect. The definition of multiple use doesn't rank or distinguish between future and present needs, so this answer is incorrect.