Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S3 · Q25 New evidence indicates that

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

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park's wildlife.

Conclusion

The recent property development bordering the national park has not adversely affected the park's wildlife.

Evidence

The amount of wildlife has increased in the decade since the new property development opened. And the park has enough resources to comfortably support its current wildlife populations.

Evaluate

I would try to figure out how to attack this argument by using a Weaken mindset: GIVEN THAT there is more wildlife now then before, and that the park has plenty of resources, HOW COULD WE ARGUE THAT the property development has adversely affected wildlife?

Maybe there's more life than before, but the quality of life has gotten worse. They're sick more often? They die younger? They are born with abnormalities?

The evidence is narrowly looking at amount of wildlife in terms of whether or not they've been adversely affected, but is amount of wildlife a good measurement? There might be many ways for amount to go up even though the animals are being adversely affected.

Goal

Look for an answer that rules out a way that wildlife might be affected (they're not hiding more, they're not getting sick more, they're not dying at a younger age, etc.), or for an answer that just gives more evidence that the park's wildlife is doing well.

25.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. Correct

    While both surveys found the

    Why this is right

    It's possible that the property development had adversely affected some of the wildlife, possibly even causing their numbers to shrink or die off. Maybe all the gophers died, but this allowed populations of squirrels and ladybugs and worms to thrive. If you lose 50 gophers but gain 200 squirrels/ladybugs/worm, then you have more wildlife than before, but it's still true that the property development adversely affected wildlife (it killed off all the gophers!) This answer goes against that objection. It says, not only is the amount of wildlife greater, but the biodiversity has been preserved, and no population has declined. There's a Whole vs. Part distinction the original argument is ignoring. Maybe there is more wildlife on the whole, but maybe there are fewer gophers and raccoons and hummingbirds, because the property development adversely affected those populations. With (A), given that the population of every species is higher than before, it's harder to argue that any species was adversely affected.

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

    57% picked this

  2. The more recent survey was

    No Impact

    We don't know when the previous survey was taken (might also have been in the summer), but if there were a mismatch and the new survey was getting an artificially high number of wildlife because of measuring in the summer, then this would Weaken the argument, not strengthen.

    5% picked this

  3. Migration of wildlife into the

    No Impact

    If anything, this sounds negative. It's saying our current populations would've strained our old budgets. We already know our current resources can handle the current population, so this really just tells us nothing interesting. But, it almost sounds like a negative, in the sense that it sounds like the property development may have adversely affected wildlife by forcing them to crowd more into the park.

    22% picked this

  4. The most recent techniques for

    Weakens

    This points to a potential problem with the data the author is relying on. She's saying, "Everything's chill. Look, there are more animals then when we measured 10 years ago!" This answer is weakening by saying, "There are more animals because we're better at finding them, not because there are more of them there".

    7% picked this

  5. The more recent survey not

    Weakens, if Anything

    I'm not sure if "plant life" gets counted among wildlife, but if it does, then this would Weaken the argument by making the two different wildlife surveys feel like an Apples vs. Oranges comparison. Of course you'd have more wildlife in the recent survey if you're now including plants. That doesn't show that the park's wildlife is thriving, just that you changed your methodology.

    9% 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