Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. If anything, the argument assumes that they don't balance themselves out, leading to problems that need to be addressed.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't rely on these limits being determined, just existing. At most, the argument requires knowledge of when demand outstrips supply, but that can be done without knowing where, exactly, the limits of supply are.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Ecological problems come from supply and demand - the Earth's resources are limited, but human demand is unlimited. Therefore, only a reduction in demand can solve these problems.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here approaches a problem—an imbalance in supply and demand for ecological resources—and reaches a conclusion about the solution—it must involve a decrease in demand.

The stimulus does discuss supply and demand, but why does it focus on adjusting demand as a requirement for any solution? Well, supply is limited by the Earth's resources, but demand is "essentially unlimited" because the "potential demands" of humans have no limit.

That's very speculative language. Potential demand may have no limits, but does actual demand outstrip supply? If the real demand placed on natural resources is lower than supply, then this whole argument falls apart. The argument assumes that there is an issue with there being higher demand than supply, so let's find that as an answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the gap between the "potential" demand of humans and the actual demand. If the actual demand doesn't outstrip supply, then there isn't a problem here and the conclusion of this argument falls apart. If it does, then the argument holds together.

Key Takeaway:
Look out for language that highlights something is possible, not certain, when reading through an argument. It's easy to miss these words, or skim over them and treat them as establishing that something is certain when it's not. Language of potentiality/possibility is a common way for the LSAT to hide a flaw in plain sight.

Incorrect. In concluding what is required for a solution, the argument assumes that such a solution is possible—in other words, a balance between supply and demand is possible.

Incorrect. The argument establishes the supply of ecological resources as limited, and as being outstripped by human demand, so, if anything, it assumes the opposite.