Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S2 · Q9 Members of large-animal species

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

Members of large-animal species must consume enormous amounts of food to survive.

Statements

conditionals (must, when)

Survive → Consume tons of food

Climate → Often can't find tons of food Deteriorates

causal (this fact helps make)

CAUSE EFFECT needing to eat more vulnerable tons of food to > > to extinction survive

Evaluate

Whenever we see conditionals, we ask ourselves 1) Do they chain up with other conditionals? 2) Can we apply them to a fact?

These two conditionals could somewhat combine to give us,

The connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentences, "This fact helps make", is what we nickname Causal Difference-Maker language. A lot of Most Supported questions give correct answers that relate to this Causal Difference-Maker (a common form is "if not cause, then not effect", which would sound like .)

Goal

Let's stay flexible, but the correct answer will likely deal with our conditional chain or with our causal difference-maker.

The statements above, if true, most support which one of the following?

The maximum population size that
Too Strong
Too Strong: main factor Out of Scope: max population size We know that the amount of food large animals need to consume is a causal factor affecting their vulnerability to extinction. But we don't have support for saying it's the MAIN factor. We also never talked about "maximum population size".
3% picked this
Correct
The vulnerability of an animal
Why this is right
This is the only answer choice that avoids extreme language (so if we hadn't read the paragraph, we would guess this answer). This is rewarding us for recognizing that Causal Difference-Maker connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentences. We were told that the fact that large animals need lots of food to survive (which can be hindered by deteriorating climate), helps make them more vulnerable to extinction. This answer is super weakly worded, which is very attractive because it's easier to prove/support weak claims. It's just saying that a species' vulnerability to extinction is at least somewhat affected by how much food they need to survive.
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
When conditions deteriorate in a
Too Strong: no
We know that large animals are more likely to become extinct when climate deteriorates and food becomes scarce, but it's way too strong to say that not a single small animal species will go extinct until a large animal species goes extinct.
1% picked this
Within any given species, the
Too Strong: any / primarily
We know that the amount of food large animals need to consume is a causal factor affecting their vulnerability to extinction. But we don't have support for saying that within every single species it's the primary determinant of survival. Just because it's the only thing mentioned in the paragraph doesn't mean that food supply is the only or the #1 thing.
4% picked this
Whenever climatic conditions in a
Too Strong: whenever
We know that large animals are more likely to become extinct when climate deteriorates and food becomes scarce, but it's way too strong to say when climate is threatening large species, every single small animal species is still able to find enough food.
6% 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