Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S4 · Q23 Columnist: Although much has been learned

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

Columnist: Although much has been learned, we are still largely ignorant of the intricate interrelationships among species of living organisms.

Conclusion

If we're gonna try to preserve any species, we should try to preserve the maximum number

Evidence

The world is super connected in ways we don't fully understand, so if we let some species die (because we don't perceive their value), we may find out that they were necessary to the preservation of species we do value.

Evaluation / Goal

We need a Principle that sort of sounds like,

Or maybe something that sounds like,

23.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the columnist's argument?

  1. It is strongly in our

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This rule doesn't have any language that connects to the idea of "save as many as possible". And it doesn't get at the "we don't know whether a given species is crucial to another we care about" part of the Premise.

    13% picked this

  2. We should not take any

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This sounds like we should just refrain from trying to save any at this point, whereas the conclusion we're trying to justify sounds more like we should try to save all of them.

    4% picked this

  3. We should not allow the

    Bad Premise Match

    There's nothing in the argument that connects with this answer choice's idea of "the minimum threshold for present and future populations to flourish".

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    We should not allow a

    Why this is right

    This is a pretty brutal correct answer. If we use the "if not" translation for UNLESS, this would sound like If we can't be sure that a certain change (a species going extinct) would not jeopardize anything important to us (the viability of a species we're not indifferent to), then we shouldn't allow that change to occur (should let that first species go extinct). This principle, when applied on a case-by-case basis, would get us pretty close to the author's conclusion of trying to save as many species as possible. With any given species that is endangered, we'd be largely ignorant (not assured) about whether this species was crucial to a species we cared about. According to the rule in (D), we shouldn't allow this first species to go extinct. By following that rule, we'd be trying to save as many species as possible

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

    64% picked this

  5. We should always undertake the

    Bad Premise Match

    There's no premise language that says "we should try to save as many species as possible, because doing so is likely to have the best immediate consequences". The premise was "we should try to save as many as possible, because we're not sure which ones we need to save in order to protect the species we care about."

    7% 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