Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT137 S1 P3 Q17 Explanation

Non-Indigenous Species

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionScience

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

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.

Passage

Passage A Until recently, conservationists were often complacent about the effect of nonindigenous plant and animal species on the ecosystems they invade. Many shared Charles Elton’s view, introduced in his 1958 book on invasive species, that disturbed habitats are most vulnerable to new arrivals because they contain fewer or less vigorous native problems and high damage and control costs generated by these invasions merit serious concern.

Invasive plants profoundly affect ecosystems and threaten biodiversity throughout the world. For example, to the untrained eye, the Everglades National Park in Florida appears wild and natural. Yet this and other unique ecosystems are being degraded as surely as if by chemical pollution. In Florida, forests are growing where none existed before. introduction of Scotch broom plants led to the disappearance of a diverse set of native reptiles.

Passage B The real threat posed by so-called invasive species isn’t against nature but against humans’ ideas of what nature is supposed to be. Species invasion is not a zero-sum game, with new species replacing old ones at a one-to-one ratio. Rather, and with critical exceptions, it is a positive-sum game, in new species and lose few or no native species, the overall species count goes up.

Invasions don’t cause ecosystems to collapse. Invasions may radically alter the components of an ecosystem, perhaps to a point at which the ecosystem becomes less valuable or engaging to humans. But 50 years of study has failed to identify a clear ecological difference between an ecosystem rich in native species and one make ecosystems shrink or disappear. They simply transform them into different ecosystems.

When the issue is phrased as one of ecosystem destruction, the stakes are stark: we choose between nature’s life and nature’s death. In actuality, introduced species present a continuum. A few species do cause costly damage and tragic extinctions. But most plant and animal species simply blend in harmlessly. The issue they nature but rather what kind of nature we will have around us.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
17.

The author of passage B would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the term “natural” as it is used

Answer choices

  1. Opposite8% picked this

    It correctly characterizes a difference between pristine and

    Passage B should be saying something negative or sarcastic about this, not complimenting that it "correctly characterizes" anything.

  2. Too Strong: contradicts6% picked this

    It contradicts a concept of nature put forth elsewhere in

    Passage B never points out any contradictions in how Passage A deals with the concept of nature.

  3. Too Positive3% picked this

    It helps to clarify a difference between the "wild" and

    Passage B should be saying something negative or sarcastic about this, not complimenting that it "helps to clarify" something.

  4. Out of Scope: unconventional8% picked this

    It introduces an unconventional definition of

    Passage B never characterizes the view in Passage A as "unconventional". It almost seems more like Passage A is a very common view and Passage B is written to roll its eyes at the frequent annoyance of this view.

  5. Correct75% picked this

    It conflates physical nature with an arbitrary ideal

    Why this is right

    This is clearly a negative sentiment, because Passage B is saying "Y'all are conflating / confusing one thing for another". To the author of Passage B, whether the Everglades is its original "pristine" sawgrass-bedecked ecosystem or whether its the Everglades 2.0 with Australian trees hovering above, they're both equally natural. In fact, the latter ecosystem has even more biodiversity. So for Passage A to imply that this updated Everglades ecosystem is unnatural is offensive to Passage B. She is saying, "You're just mad because this ecosystem doesn't look the way you wanted it to. It's not as useful or attractive to you. That doesn't mean it's unnatural. It's definitely natural, in the physical sense. It's only unnatural to you in your arbitrary sense of what this ecosystem should look like, in the ideal."

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage'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.

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