Passage Summary: An environmentalist argues that protecting nature is good for the economy because people want to live in beautiful places, and businesses follow the people.

Conclusion: Environmental protection mandates in scenic areas can benefit those regions' economies as a whole.

Reasoning: Natural beauty attracts new residents, and the resulting population growth draws in new businesses, which can offset the economic damage done to older industries.

Analysis: The argument relies on a 'net gain' calculation: the environmentalist assumes the new business growth will be greater than the loss of the older industries. If the older industries were the primary economic engine and the new businesses are just small-scale services, the economy might still shrink overall. To find the necessary assumption, ask yourself what *must* be true for this 'net gain' to occur. We need to assume that the influx of new residents and businesses is actually capable of providing a larger economic benefit than the industries being harmed.