Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q8 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

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

Wildlife Commission Conclusion

Future wetland development in Figoria must be regulated and offset by replacement habitats so that there is no net reduction of wetlands and no threat to species.

Wildlife Commission Evidence

Wetland development in industrialized nations has endangered many species.

Development Commission Conclusion

Figoria should be allowed to develop its wetlands.

Development Commission Evidence

Figoria has already conserved (unlike other nations that flagrantly developed wetlands), the development might not affect wildlife, and it is necessary for growth. Figoria has the same right to govern its own resources as nations that already used theirs commercially.

Evaluate

We're trying to support the second speaker, whose agenda is .

They're kind of saying,

Goal

We have a lot of premises to work with, and the correct answer doesn't have to use all of them. We just want an answer that takes us FROM something we know is applicable to the FDC's argument helps us take us TO the idea that it's okay to develop wetlands at the expense of wildlife.

Which one of the following principles, if accepted, would most strongly support the Figorian Development Commission's position against the Figorian Wildlife Commission's position?

National resources should be regulated
Bad Match
This principle helps you conclude that, "Natural resources should be regulated by international agreement". That's miles away from our desired conclusion of, "Figorian developers should be allowed to develop wetlands at the expense of wildlife." This feels like it would weaken the second person's argument, if anything.
3% picked this
The right of future generations
Opposite
If the right of future generations to wildlife trumps current economic needs, that is a reason against developing wetlands for growth. This supports the Wildlife Commission, not the Development Commission. We need a principle that helps the Development Commission's pro-development position.
3% picked this
Correct
Only when a reduction of
Why this is right
The normative language in this answer is about whether or not regulation should be implemented to prevent further damage by commercial development. The 1st speaker thought it should be implemented. The 2nd speaker is saying it shouldn't be implemented, because they're rebutting that point of view. "Only when" is the conditional trigger, so the rule initially looks like Reg should be → reduction of endangered populations implemented by comm develop has been found We always want that normative language on the right side, so we contrapose and get, "If we haven't found any reduction of endangered populations by commercial development, then we shouldn't implement regulations to prevent further damage." Is that trigger applicable? Is it true that we haven't found any reduction? It's not said explicitly, but it's suggested by "wetland development might not affect wildlife". If we had already found a reduction of endangered populations due to commercial development, we wouldn't have a tentative opinion like "it might affect wildlife". We would know that it does. So, disgustingly, this is our best answer. We can come closest to establishing its trigger, and the outcome does sound like 2nd speaker opposing 1st speaker's desire to implement regulation. Luckily the other four answers all sounded like they were Person 1, rather than Person 2.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
Environment regulation must aim at
Opposite
This principle says regulation must aim at preventing further damage (that's very anti-development) and cannot account for which nations have already harmed the environment. Our speaker doesn't want regulation and is factoring in the different degrees to which different nations have already harmed the environment.
12% picked this
It is imprudent to allow
Opposite
If it is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources, then we should not allow new wetland development. That supports the Wildlife Commission's call for regulation, not the Development Commission's desire to develop those natural resources into commercial uses.
4% 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