PrepTest 101

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss natural resources other than the ozone layer, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Economist never claims that the ozone layer shouldn't be protected—she argues that before we can decide what to do to protect it, we need to figure out how much we'd spend to do so.

Incorrect. The Environmentalists specifically talk about "monetary" value, which is what the Economist talks about, as well, so there's no shift in the meaning of the term.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Protecting the ozone layer requires putting a price on protecting it

Environmentalists: You can't put a price on the ozone layer

Economist: We wouldn't spend every single resource on protecting the ozone layer, so we can put a price on it.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a few pieces to it—background, a counterpoint, the Economist's argument—so we should be sure that we recognize what part we're looking for an error in. Specifically, the stem asks us about the Economist's argument, so we should limit ourselves to considering that portion.

There, the Economist brings up a point—we wouldn't expend all of the world's resources to protect the ozone layer.

From this, it concludes that since we wouldn't spend everything on saving the ozone layer, there must be a "calculable monetary value" of it. However, just because it doesn't cost all available resources doesn't mean we can figure out a specific value for it. After all, you wouldn't give your life for a sip of water in the desert, but that doesn't mean we can figure out exactly how much you'd pay for it!

Let's find an answer stating that the argument assumes that if something isn't worth everything that we can figure out exactly how much it's worth.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumption made by the argument. The Economist establishes that humans wouldn't expend all of the world's economic resources to protect the ozone layer—an upper limit. From this, it concludes that the specific amount is calculable. However, it never establishes a reason to believe that to be the case! This answer is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
At the highest level, almost all assumptions take the form of, "If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true." Here, we think that it might be easy to not be able to articulate or spot the gap between setting an upper limit and establishing that there is a limit that can be calculated. When you're in that position, understand the argument that you're being asked to analyze and then look for an answer that deals with how the premise and conclusion are connected.

Incorrect. The Environmentalists state that the ozone layer doesn't have a calculable monetary value. The Economist discusses at least one limit on the monetary value we'd assign to the ozone layer. While her argument isn't ultimately persuasive (she makes an assumption), it does address the issue raised by the Environmentalists, so this answer is incorrect.