Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S2 · Q7 Principle: People should not feed

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

Principle: People should not feed wild animals because it makes them dependent on humans and less likely to survive on their own.

Given that...

People should not feed wild animals because it makes them dependent on humans and less likely to survive on their own.

How can this be justified...

Bird lovers commonly feed wild birds to attract them to their yards and gardens.

Evaluate / Goal

We're looking for a reason to treat the bird lovers' feeding of wild birds as an exception. Is there a reason why these wild birds won't become dependent on humans and less likely to survive on their own? Maybe the bird lovers are only feeding birds that are already dependent on humans. This kind of answer could justify the bird lovers' actions even if we accept the principle.

7.

Which one of the following, if assumed, would most help to justify treating the human feeding of wild birds as an exception to the principle above?

  1. Congregating around human bird feeders

    Opposite

    This supports the idea that humans endanger wild birds by feeding them.

    1% picked this

  2. Some species of wild birds

    Opposite

    A benefit for humans doesn't justify making wild birds more dependent on humans or endangering their ability to survive. This gives us more reason to want the birds to survive in the wild and more reason to avoid harming them.

    5% picked this

  3. Wild birds are much more

    Opposite (if anything)

    If anything, the fact that wild birds are more likely to congregate in yards where they are fed might indicate that they're eating the food that humans leave for them, This could increase the likelihood of them becoming dependent on humans.

    2% picked this

  4. Most bird lovers are very

    Opposite (if anything)

    If anything, this might mean that most bird lovers are aware that feeding wild birds can harm them. The bird lovers can't plead ignorance, and ignorance wouldn't justify their actions anyway.

    9% picked this

  5. Correct

    Human settlement is so pervasive

    Why this is right

    This could justify the bird lovers' actions. They aren't making these birds more dependent on humans. They're feeding birds that are already dependent on humans.

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

    82% 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