Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q7 Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development

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

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species.

Conclusion (Thus)

Development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.

Evidence

Future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats.

Evaluate

This author is concerned that we might endanger species when we allow development on wetlands.

She's got a Plan / Recommendation: if a developer wants to build on 10 acres of wetlands in area A, then they have to build 10 acres of wetlands in some other area to offset that.

This is supposed to result in no net reduction in wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.

Can we think of any way that if we enacted this regulation there would be a net reduction in wetlands or there could be a threat to the species inhabiting them?

Goal

The correct answer, when negated, should weaken. So let's look for an answer whose negation makes it sound like even though construction companies will have to construct replacement wetland habitats, there still will be a net reduction in wetlands or a threat to wetland species.

7.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument advanced by the Figorian Wildlife Commission depends?

  1. More species have been endangered

    Too Strong: than any other

    The only type of development that discussed in this paragraph was that of the development of wetlands (and it does potentially endanger some species). But just because it's the only threatening type of development discussed doesn't mean the author is assuming that development of wetlands is the #1 threatening type of development.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    The species indigenous to natural

    Why this is right

    According to this plan, a developer that wants to build over 10 acres of wetlands somewhere need to build "a replacement" 10 acres of wetland somewhere else. That way there will be "no net reduction in wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them". But that only works if the species being displaced from the original site can also survive in these specially constructed replacement wetlands. In essence, this answer is saying, "this plan assumes that humans are capable of constructing replacement wetlands where species indigenous to wetland habitats can survive". If we negate this, it's saying, "the species that live in wetlands won't be able to survive in these manmade wetlands". That's a huge objection to this plan, because it makes the potential solution sound like one that isn't feasible.

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

    81% picked this

  3. In nations that are primarily

    Out of Scope: Primarily Agricultural Nations

    This author hasn't said a word about nations that are primarily agricultural, so she's not assuming anything about them. This is just the classic Necessary Assumption Illegal Opposite trap answer. If a sentence in an argument says that "people who serve in the Coast Guard are heroes", then trap answers will accuse the author of assuming: - if you don't serve in the Coast Guard, you're not a hero Since the author is talking about industrialized nations and saying that they need regulation, this trap answer says, "If not-industrialized nation, then doesn't need regulation".

    2% picked this

  4. Figorian regulation of development has

    Out of Scope: In The Past

    This author's argument is all about the future conditional tense: "following this plan would achieve this goal". That sort of conclusion doesn't make any commitments to how things went in the past. Even if we negate this and say, "in the past, regulation of development has not protected and preserved wildlife", that doesn't mean that this new plan won't work. LSAT considers it a flaw to assume that "because X was true in past cases, X will be true again in the present case". What if the present case is meaningfully different from the past cases?

    8% picked this

  5. The species that inhabit Figorian

    Too Strong: Most Threatened

    Nothing in this paragraph is ranking or comparing how threatened some species are to others. This answer is similar to (A): it takes whatever the author talked about and tries to turn it into the only thing that's like that or the most important thing that's like that. If I say, "playing a game of Scrabble with someone is a good way to pass to the time", this type of trap answer accuses me of assuming - Scrabble is the only game that is a good way to pass the time - Scrabble is a better way to pass the time than is any other type of board game This author's argument wouldn't be affected in any way if the wetlands species were #2 or #3 on the rankings of "most threatened". There's no reason those species need to be the most threatened.

    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