Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q8 The gray squirrel, introduced into

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The gray squirrel, introduced into local woodlands ten years ago, threatens the indigenous population of an endangered owl species, because the squirrels’ habitual stripping of tree bark destroys the trees in which the owls nest.

Conclusion

The poison set out to eliminate the gray squirrels eliminate them and would pose no threat to the owl population.

Evidence (since)

The poison would be placed in containers accessible only to squirrels and other rodents.

Evaluate

This argument involves a Plan/Goal structure:

Goal: Eliminate the gray squirrels / don't harm the owls

Plan: Set out poison in specific containers for squirrels and other rodents.

To evaluate the argument, consider whether the Plan (poisoning squirrels) could fail to achieve the Goal (eliminating squirrels without harming owls). Although the officials believe their method won't impact owls due to the poison's placement, we should consider if this Plan could somehow still threaten the owl population indirectly.

Goal

We want to find an answer that suggests a way in which setting out the poison could still pose a threat to the owl population, despite officials' claims to the contrary, or a way that it would fail to eliminate the squirrels.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the officials' argument?

One of the species whose
No Impact
If owls did prey on a species that was gonna get killed by poison, that would be bad for owls. But this species isn't related to owls.
2% picked this
Correct
The owls whose nesting sites
Why this is right
If the owls primarily feed on rodents, and these rodents eat the poison, it poses an indirect threat to the owl population because their food supply could be harmed or diminished. The weakened or reduced rodent population could negatively impact the owl population even if the poison doesn't directly harm owls. This answer plays off the Breadcrumb "only accessible to squirrels and other rodents".
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
No indigenous population of any
No Impact
It doesn't matter whether animals besides owls are also affected by the squirrels. Whether there are or aren't, it won't help us assess whether the poison will eradicate the squirrels or whether it will harm the owls.
1% picked this
The owls that are threatened
No Impact
The difference in stripping location does not address the issue of whether the poison directly or indirectly threatens the owl population, or whether the poison would get rid of the squirrels.
8% picked this
The officials’ plan entails adding
No Impact
This sort of doubles down on the idea that the poison will be targeted at squirrels and other rodents, but doesn't give us any new info to judge whether the poison will successfully kill the squirrels or whether it will somehow harm the owls.
3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free