Stimulus Opinions versus Assertions

The “Some environmentalists question...” construction at the start of the
stimulus does not lead to the usual counterconclusion because the
stimulus does not contain an argument.
With the analysis of these three LSAT questions, examples of each
of the incorrect answer categories have been presented.
Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
***Some environmentalists question the prudence of
exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from
forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature
has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic
costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred
from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features
of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic
reasons in questioning the defensibility of
exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a
noneconomic justification in questioning the
defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for
protecting the environment, there is a sound
noneconomic justification for doing so.
This is a very interesting stimulus because the author repeats the opinions of
others and never makes an assertion of his or her own. When a stimulus
contains only the opinions of others, then in a Must Be True question you can
eliminate any answer choice that makes a flat assertion without reference to
those opinions. For example, answer choice (A) makes a factual assertion (“It
is...”) that cannot be backed up by the author’s survey of opinions in the
stimulus—the opinions do not let us know the actual facts of the situation.
Answer choice (E) can be eliminated for the very same reason.
Answer choices (B), (C), and (D) each address the environmentalists, and thus
each is initially a Contender.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. The second sentence references
the views of many environmentalists, who claim that “nature has intrinsic value”
(for example, beauty). This view is the noneconomic justification cited by the
answer choice.
This answer can be a bit tricky because of the convoluted language the test
makers use. “Questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the
environment” is a needlessly complex phrase. A more direct manner of writing
that phrase would be “attacking the exploitation of the environment.”
To increase the difficulty of this problem, this language was then repeated in
answer choices (C) and (D).
Answer choice (C): We only know the opinions of “some” and “many”
environmentalists, and these numbers do not provide enough information to
discern the views of “most” environmentalists, which is the term used in the
answer choice (“many” is not the same as “most”).
Answer choice (D): This answer choice cannot be proven. While we know that
many environmentalists claim an noneconomic justification, we do not know
that that is the only justification they provide.
When you are reading a stimulus, keep a careful watch on the statements the
author offers as fact, and those that the author offers as the opinion of others. In
a Must Be True question, the difference between the two can sometimes be
used to eliminate answer choices.