Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: than any other6% picked this

   More species have been endangered by the development of wetlands than have been endangered by any

   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.

   6%
2. B

   Correct81% picked this

   The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will survive in specially

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope: Primarily Agricultural Nations2% picked this

   In nations that are primarily agricultural, wetland development does not need

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope: In The Past8% picked this

   Figorian regulation of development has in the past protected and

   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%
5. E

   Too Strong: Most Threatened3% picked this

   The species that inhabit Figorian wetlands are among the most severely threatened of the

   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%