Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT107 S3 Q17 Explanation

Wild cheetahs live in the African

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

TopicsMost Supported

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Wild cheetahs live in the African grasslands. Previous estimates of the size that the wild cheetah population must be in order for these animals to survive a natural disaster in the African grasslands region were too small, and the current population barely meets the previous estimates. At present, support a wild cheetah population larger than the current population.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

Conclusion

This is a fact-set, not an argument. Your job is just to chain the facts together and see what they imply.

Evidence

Three pieces, all pointing the same way: (1) the old estimate of how many cheetahs we need to survive a disaster was too low, (2) the current population just barely hits that already-too-low number, and (3) there is not enough grassland to support more cheetahs than we currently have.

Evaluate

Stack those up. The actual safe-population number is higher than the old estimate. The current population only just meets the old estimate. So the current population is below the actual safe number — meaning if a natural disaster hits, the cheetahs are in trouble.

And there is no quick fix: the population cannot grow because there is not enough grassland to support more animals.

Goal

Pick the answer that puts these pieces together: in the short term, the cheetah population is not big enough to weather a natural disaster.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported11% picked this

    Previous estimates of the size of the existing wild cheetah population

    The passage says previous estimates of the population needed for survival of a disaster were too small. It does not say previous estimates of the actual existing population were inaccurate. Those are different estimates. The "too small" estimate is the threshold population for disaster survival, not a count of how many cheetahs there currently are.

  2. Unsupported17% picked this

    The cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size at a faster rate than is the size of

    The passage tells us there isn't enough grassland to support more cheetahs, but it does not say the grassland is shrinking faster than the population. We don't know whether the grassland is shrinking at all, growing, or static. We don't know how the rate of grassland change compares to the rate of population change.

  3. Unsupported3% picked this

    The principal threat to the endangered wild cheetah population is neither pollution nor hunting, but

    The passage discusses natural disasters as a survival threat but never compares them to other threats like pollution or hunting. We don't know what the principal threat is — only that the cheetah population isn't large enough to survive a natural disaster if one occurred. "Principal threat" is a comparison the passage never makes.

  4. Correct69% picked this

    In the short term, the wild cheetah population will be incapable of surviving a natural disaster

    Why this is right

    This is the inference the facts directly support. The actual disaster-survivable population is higher than the old estimate. The current population barely meets the old (low) estimate. So the current population is below the actual survival threshold. And there isn't enough grassland to grow the population — so in the short term, the population can't reach the threshold. That is exactly what "incapable of surviving a natural disaster" captures.

    Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  5. Unsupported1% picked this

    In regions where land is suitable for cheetah habitation, more natural disasters are expected to occur during the next decade than

    The passage gives no information about the frequency of natural disasters in cheetah habitat — past or future. We have no basis to predict more disasters in the next decade than the past one. This is a forecast the passage simply doesn't support.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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