Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q2 Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the

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

Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the perfect site for the proposed astronomical observatory.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

The observatory should be the salvation of endemic life-forms, not a threat.

Evidence (since)

The observatory would preclude recreational use of the mountain, and it's estimated that 20,000 recreational users visit the mountain every year, which poses a threat to the wildlife.

Evaluate

Building this observatory would mean prohibiting recreational use of the mountain, and so the 20,000 people that would usually visit the mountain presumably wouldn't?

It's pretty fair to think there would be less recreational use than before, even if some people still skirt the rules.

So how can we acknowledge, ?

Maybe the huge telescopes would make weird noises when in use that spooked the local wildlife and interrupted their mating rituals. Maybe trash from the observatory would run-off into the local ecosystem and cause damage.

Goal

We don't know exactly what storyline we'll get, but the correct answer should give us some storyline that makes it sound like building the observatory will have some negative impact on the local wildlife.

2.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the astronomer's argument?

  1. More than a dozen insect

    No Impact

    This answer potentially raises the stakes of why we care about whether or not the observatory will threaten wildlife, because we learn that there are some precious species in the vicinity. But this answer doesn't give us any reason to think that the observatory will threaten wildlife, and that's what we're looking for.

    3% picked this

  2. A coalition of 14 different

    No Impact

    This answer makes it sound like the observatory has a wide range of opponents, but we don't know why each group opposes the observatory. Are any of these groups opposing the observatory because they think it will threaten wildlife? If so, what's their evidence? The fact that people oppose the observatory isn't evidence that it negatively impacts local wildlife.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    Having a complex that covers

    Why this is right

    This answer makes it sound like the observatory would end up disrupting / damaging the local ecology about as much as the current level of recreational use does. In that sense, the observatory might be neither a net gain or net loss for local wildlife. It might be tied with the current status quo. But being tied with the current situation still hurts the conclusion, because in the conclusion the author is saying that the observatory will make the situation better for wildlife: "It should be their salvation". We can object, "Yes, author, the observatory would prevent damage that would otherwise happen from recreational use, but it wouldn't be the salvation of the local wildlife. After all, it would create as much disruption as the recreational use. So it ends up being a similar situation for wildlife."

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

    84% picked this

  4. The building of the observatory

    Strengthens

    If we removed the word "not", then this would be a fantastic objection, about how the building of the observatory would ultimately lead to bad things. But since this answer is ruling-out that objection, it's strengthening the argument.

    7% picked this

  5. A survey conducted by a

    No Impact

    This answer makes it seem like we could, or maybe even should, build the observatory elsewhere, but that has no impact on the conclusion. This conclusion isn't a recommendation that we should build this observatory on Mount Shalko. It's a causal claim. The author is claiming that building the observatory will greatly help to local wildlife. We can only dispute this argument by trying to argue that building the observatory would not greatly help local wildlife. Saying "there are better places to build this" doesn't help us judge whether building it here would have the effect the author claims it would have.

    5% 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