Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q15 The better we understand the behavior

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

The better we understand the behavior and ecological niche of an endangered species, the better chance we have of saving it.

Statements

There are two "volume dial" relationships, with an overlapping ingredient, so we should presumably chain them together.

The more individuals of a species we study, The better we understand a species, The better a chance we have of saving it.

Goal

Since correct answers love to reward us for connecting things together, we can anticipate that an answer might sound like,

, or conversely .

15.

Which one of the following most reasonably completes the argument?

many endangered species will become
Too Strong: will
The paragraph was phrased in timeless generalities. This answer is making a specific prediction about the future. We weren't provided any information about the present or the future.
2% picked this
continued reduction of wildlife habitat
Too Strong: impossible
These "volume dial" relationships don't really allow us to support something binary like "impossible to save species". Maybe we could say something weaker like, "If we don't understand the niche of an endangered species at all, then our chances of saving it will be as low as they can be", but there's no way from this paragraph to derive a claim do definitively hopeless.
2% picked this
Correct
knowledge that contributes to saving
Why this is right
This is a confusing reinforcement of what we predicted: "the fewer individuals of a species we study, the worse chance we have of saving it" As species become more endangered, we will presumably have fewer individuals of that species to study, so the worse we will understand that species. And since less knowledge about a species (specifically about its behavior and ecological niche) makes it harder to save, we can put this all together and say that as a species becomes more endangered, we will have a harder time saving it (because we'll have a harder time acquiring a better understanding of its niche).
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
81% picked this
to save endangered species it
Unknown Comparison
We somewhat know what the "right" kind of knowledge is (understanding the behavior and ecological niche of an endangered species", but the author never brought up taking action and doesn't give us any way to say that good knowledge is better than taking action.
14% picked this
the impact of human study
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: study harms the species There's nothing in this paragraph that would get us to an idea that by studying an endangered species we actually did more harm than benefit.
0% 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