Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q17 Wild cheetahs live in the African

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

Wild cheetahs live in the African grasslands.

Facts

math-y comparisons

Previous estimates of minimum-surviving cheetah population were too small.

Current population barely meets those previous estimates.

(We can seemingly inter by combining those that the current population of cheetahs is not big enough to survive a natural disaster)

pivot

There isn't presently enough grassland to support a larger population.

Evaluate

If we've already established from the first two facts that we don't have enough cheetahs to survive a natural disaster in the grasslands, then it's bad news to add on that .

It sounds like cheetahs are screwed if there's a natural disaster.

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying that the cheetahs are not likely to survive a natural disaster in the grasslands.

17.

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

  1. Previous estimates of the size

    Unsupported

    Out of Scope (prev estimates of pop) 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. If we were tempted by this, we'd be thinking, "Isn't that just what the second claim said?" That's a trappy feeling on Inference or Assumption. We don't expect answers to reiterate any claim that was said (we expect them to combine claims).

    10% picked this

  2. The cheetah’s natural habitat is

    Unsupported

    We don't have any reason to think the cheetah's habitat is decreasing at all. We have reason to think it isn't increasing (the final sentence), but that's it. Since we don't even know if habitat is decreasing, we definitely can't compare the speed of decrease to some other speed of decrease.

    17% picked this

  3. The principal threat to the

    Unsupported

    Natural disasters are the only threat mentioned, but that doesn't allow us to infer that they are the only threat / the primary threat. Hunting and pollution may be equal or greater threats; we just didn't discuss them.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    In the short term, the

    Why this is right

    This is the "cheetahs are screwed by a natural disaster" inference we were looking for. We know the current population is about the size that is TOO SMALL to survive a natural disaster, and we know that "at present" we can't get a bigger cheetah population. So in the short term, the population can't reach the threshold for surviving a natural disaster.

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

    70% picked this

  5. In regions where land is

    Unsupported

    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.

    1% 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