Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT127 S2 Q23 Explanation

Ecologist: Without the intervention

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMust be True

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. But they will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. Squirrel monkeys flourish in second­ growth of their favorite insects and fruit.

What this question is testing

Must be True

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
23.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the

Answer choices

  1. Reversal2% picked this

    No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys' favorite

    This reverses an implication of PSIF → SGF the third statement.

  2. Too Strong22% picked this

    At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second­ growth

    The statements do not ensure that conservationists will indeed intervene to help the squirrel monkeys.

  3. Negation9% picked this

    Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys

    This relies on negating the ~PSIF → ~FP second statement. ~FP → E ∴ PSIF → E To say that if the forest is not ~FP → E preserved, then the squirrel monkeys will become extinct negates the second statement.

  4. Negation9% picked this

    If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will

    This negates the first statement. I → ~E

  5. Correct58% picked this

    Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved

    Why this is right

    This combines the first and ~I → E second statements. E → ~FP ∴ ~I → ~FP

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

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