Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q23 Environmental ethicist: Since whooping cranes

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

Environmental ethicist: Since whooping cranes, unlike sandhill cranes, are endangered as a species, the survival of any one whooping crane is much more important to the preservation of its species than the survival of any one sandhill crane is to the preservation of its species.

Conclusion (Hence)

We have a greater duty to protect the life of an individual whooping crane than we do to protect the life of an individual sandhill crane.

Evidence

Whooping cranes, unlike sandhill cranes, are endangered as a species, and thus the survival of any one whooping crane is much more important to the preservation of its species than the survival of any one sandhill crane is to the preservation of its species.

Evaluate

The author is arguing that we have a greater duty to protect a whooping crane than a sandhill crane based on two concepts: 1. whooping is endangered / sandhill isn't 2. survival of each whooping is more important to its species' survival than is survival of each sandhill crane.

Goal

So let's look for an answer saying, .

Or look for an answer saying something like, .

23.

The environmental ethicist's reasoning conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?

  1. Any duty to protect the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This just tells us that "our duty to protect life" is completely separate from "our duty to protect the species to which the organism belongs". We need the answer to provide a principle that helps us decide "which animal do we have a greater duty to protect".

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    The more important the survival

    Why this is right

    This connects language from the Conclusion (greater duty to protect the life of whooping crane than the life of a sandhill crane) to language from the Evidence (the survival of an individual whooping crane is more important to the survival of its species than is the survival of an individual sandhill crane).

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

    72% picked this

  3. The fewer species an endangered

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is potentially useful as a rule, since it helps one determine that we have a greater duty to protect X than to protect Y. In order to apply this to our conclusion, we need to know that "a whooping crane is closely related to fewer other species than a sandhill crane is". But we were never told that in the evidence.

    2% picked this

  4. There is a greater duty

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is about protecting the life of an individual, not of the species as a whole. So this principle seems to go against our conclusion, if anything.

    3% picked this

  5. There is a greater duty

    Reversed Logic

    Since "only if" always indicates the idea that goes on the right of the arrow, we can see that this answer is putting conclusion language ("greater duty to protect") on the left side of the arrow. That's an automatic disqualifier. This answer says this: Greater duty to ? X is endangered protect X over Y and Y is not This would match the argument perfectly if those sides were reversed, but it's currently saying, "If the conclusion is true, then the premise follows".

    22% 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