Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q7 Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower

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

Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction.

Conclusion (therefore)

The daisy should be introduced into the wildflower's range.

Evidence (since)

Hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range.

It can cross-pollinate with the daisy, producing viable seeds.

Evaluate

We're ultimately trying to justify a conclusion that is recommending that we take a certain course of action, so if it's conditional, it should take a form like,

.

Why does this author think we should introduce the daisy? Because the wildflower is headed for extinction, but by cross-breeding with a daisy we'd save 1/2 of its DNA (offspring always receives 1/2 its genes from one parent and 1/2 from the other, so if a daisy and wildflower are cross-pollinated, then the seeds would presumably be 1/2 daisy DNA and 1/2 wildflower DNA).

The argument admits that this hybridized offspring will be different from the original wildflower but figures .

Goal

Let's look for a conditional answer like, .

Or let's look for a Weighing Tradeoffs answer like, .

Or maybe a surprise.

7.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the conservationist's reasoning?

  1. It is better to take

    Out of Scope: valued / drastic

    It's never established that this wildflower is a "valued type of organism", nor is it established that introducing daisies into the wildflower's range would be a "drastic measure". So we're not going to be able to match the language of this rule to our argument. This answer also seems to have weighed tradeoffs in the opposite way. Our argument is thinking, "It's better to accept a less-pure substitute for something than to lose that something altogether."

    1% picked this

  2. It is better to preserve

    Out of Scope: vigorous / replace

    The language about "not vigorous / more vigorous" is totally new. We know that as a species the wildflower is endangered, but we have no idea if individual wildflower organisms are frail vs. vigorous. We have no idea if daisies are "more vigorous". And the conversation was never considering this question at all: "Should we preserve the wildflower that's in danger of extinction, or should we allow the more vigorous daisy to replace it"?

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is better to change

    Why this is right

    This gives us the Weighing Tradeoffs type of answer we anticipated. The author's argument is mainly found in the final sentence, and there is a caveat / disclaimer / competing interest there. "Although the hybrid would differ markedly ... we should still introduce the daisy into the wildflower's range so that they can cross-pollinate". The result of this plan will be that we'll get a crop of plants that are 1/2 daisy, 1/2 wildflower. That is a radical change; it differs markedly from the wildflower species itself. But, if we don't take this action, the wildflower will be extinct. So the author, in recommending this action, is saying, "It's better that we take the pure wildflower and change it, radically, into a 1/2 daisy, 1/2 wildflower hybrid than that we lose the wildflower entirely". The author is saying in her final two ideas, "on the one hand this plan would result in a plant that's markedly different from the wildflower; on the other hand this plan is the only way to prevent total loss of the wildflower". Since she ends up suggesting that we do this plan, she must think "preventing total loss > preventing a plant that is radically changed".

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

    94% picked this

  4. It is better to destroy

    Out of Scope: destroy

    Nothing in the plan being considered involves the potential for destroying either type of organism. We're just talking about planting some daisies near these wildflowers, so that they can cross-pollinate.

    1% picked this

  5. It is better to protect

    Out of Scope: negative effects

    This answer would be saying, "It's better that we protect the endangered wildflower than do nothing, even if protecting the wildflower will have some negative effects on daisies". But the paragraph never talked about any negative effects on daisies.

    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