Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q16 Wildlife management experts

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

Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, because manipulating the environment to make it easier for an endangered species to survive in a habitat invariably makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive in that habitat.

Conclusion

Wildlife management experts shouldn't interfere with natural habitats of creatures in the wild.

Evidence

Trying to interfere with a natural habitat for the sake of making it easier for an endangered species to survive will make it harder for the other, non-endangered species to survive in that habitat.

Evaluation

If we wanted to object to the conclusion, we have to argue that

This is kind of like someone arguing, .

We might say ...

Goal

Look for an answer objecting that . The author is failing to consider that the nonendangered species might be thriving enough that making things "harder" for them is still not any significant threat or hardship.

16.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. fails to consider that wildlife

    Out of Scope

    The author isn't debating "who knows best". He's just arguing that we shouldn't take an action because of its negative repercussion. The flaw there is that maybe the negative repercussion is something we can live with, and the positive effects outweigh it.

    7% picked this

  2. fails to recognize that a

    Opposite

    This actually strengthens the author's case. We wanted an answer that said, "fails to recognize that a nonendangered species might be so comfortably thriving that making life harder is not going to pose a threat to that species". This amplifies the danger of the negative repercussion, so it works in favor of the author.

    4% picked this

  3. overlooks the possibility that saving

    Out of Scope: overall diversity

    The concept of overall biodiversity is out of scope. We're just debating whether we should interfere for the sake of troubled species, even if it's likely to make life worse for stronger species. Incompatible = contradictory. This is a weird notion that "saving a species contradicts the goal of preserving overall diversity". Every time a species is lost to extinction, the overall diversity of species in that habitat would go down. So this answer is accusing the author of failing to consider an idea that sounds pretty weird in the first place.

    11% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: equally

    It's the classic "assumes + strong language" trap answer in Flaw. The author doesn't have to assume something as strong as "each species is equally important to the health of the environment". Negating that means, "at least one species is slightly more or less important to the health of the environment than the others". That doesn't sound like a big objection to this logic. He is definitely assuming that "there are not some species who are so important that they are worth saving even if it makes life harder for the other species". But that's not as extreme as "all species are equally important". He doesn't need to assume they're all the same. He just needs to assume there aren't at least some really important species that would be worth saving, despite the negative impact on other species.

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    takes for granted that preserving

    Why this is right

    The author does make this assumption. If we negate this, it would sound like "preserving an endangered species does have a higher priority than preserving the non-endangered species". That would be a big objection to the argument. The author is saying, "don't do this interfering in habitat thing -- even though it's intended for something good, it would also result in something bad". Negating this assumption would present the objection that doing the good thing has a higher priority than avoiding the bad thing.

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

    75% 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