Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S3 · Q23 Naturalist: A species can survive

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

Naturalist: A species can survive a change in environment, as long as the change is not too rapid.

Evidence

A species can survive a change in environment, as long s the change is not too rapid.

Conclusion

Therefore, the threats we are creating to woodland species arise not from the fact that we are cutting down trees, but rather from the rate at which we are doing so.

Evaluate

The argument challenges one cause of threats to woodland species by presenting a counterexample and proposing an alternative cause.

23.

The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the naturalist's argument?

  1. The problem with burning fossil

    Wrong Conclusion

    The conclusion in this answer does not challenge one possible cause and offer an alternative cause, as in the stimulus.

    6% picked this

  2. Many people gain more satisfaction

    Wrong Conclusion

    This argument does not challenge a possible cause of happiness before asserting that performing a job well is the cause of happiness.

    2% picked this

  3. Some students who study thoroughly

    Wrong Premise

    This argument provides an example that supports the asserted cause, but for this answer to be correct the premise should challenge whether the amount of time a student puts into studying could be the more important contributor to success.

    15% picked this

  4. Correct

    People do not fear change

    Why this is right

    The argument challenges one cause of the employees' fear by presenting a counter example and proposing an alternative cause.

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

    75% picked this

  5. Until ten years ago, we

    Wrong Conclusion

    This conclusion does not match the original argument since it does not rule out a possible cause of the decline in agriculture before asserting that two factors jointly caused the decline.

    2% 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