Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q25 Ecological terms like “invasive species”

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

Ecological terms like “invasive species” invoke human cultural standards like belonging, citizenship, fair play, and morality and apply them to the natural world.

Conclusion / Recommendation

Ecologists should avoid using terms like "invasive species".

Evidence

Terms like that invoke human cultural standards about fairness and can influence ecologists' opinions of certain organisms before any data is gathered about their impact.

Evaluate

If an author is saying, , then the author is assuming the principle that .

Here the author is saying,

Goal

So the author is assuming the principle that,

But we need our principle to be more generic / abstract, so that it could apply to a different topic.

We should look for stuff like: - avoid doing X because doing X would cause you to have a baked-in prejudice before you've even seen the data

25.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated above?

  1. Police should not use terms

    Weak Match

    This has a similar conclusion about, "should not use a certain term", but is the evidence saying, "If you use that term, you'll have a negative association with something before any evidence has been examined"? No, it's saying, "don't use that term even if you have really strong evidence". This answer could be fine if it said, "Police should not use terms like thief when talking about suspects before any evidence has been gathered concerning their potential guilt."

    18% picked this

  2. Environmental regulators should not argue

    Bad Evidence Match

    This also recommends that a certain occupation avoid saying certain things, but the evidence here is that these people are the right people to be deciding such matters. In the original, we were saying that ecologists shouldn't use certain terms (not because it was someone else's job to decide on those terms, but) because they would form a negative opinion of certain organisms before any data is gathered about whether they're actually bad for an ecosystem.

    2% picked this

  3. Opinion writers should avoid using

    Bad Evidence Match

    This also recommends that a certain occupation avoid saying certain things, but the evidence here is that saying such things will turn the audience against you. In the original, we were saying that ecologists shouldn't use certain terms (not because it would make other people discount the views of the ecologist, but) because the ecologists would have a prejudiced feeling about an organism before data is gathered about whether it's actually bad for an ecosystem.

    11% picked this

  4. Correct

    Software developers should refrain from

    Why this is right

    This recommends that a certain occupation avoid saying certain things, because using terms would influence how software developers think about how their programs will react to surprise situations. It's a bit of a strained match, but there are a couple key similarities: - people in occupation X shouldn't use certain terms because it will change how people in that occupation think about certain things This is the only answer that says, "Person A shouldn't use term X, because using term X to refer to thing Y will change how Person A thinks about thing Y." That would be enough to make this the best available answer, but we also have a second similarity: - Ecologists were judging that a new organism was "bad" for an ecosystem because of the loaded term "invasive", before they actually had data on it. - Software developers were describing their software as "sensitive, nimble responsive" and judging thusly that their software would react adeptly to unanticipated inputs, before they actually have data on how the software will respond to those inputs.

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

    69% picked this

  5. People should be careful when

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match

    This isn't about recommending that an occupation avoid certain terms, so it's not as much like the original. And the evidence isn't saying that "using a term like this will bias the professional's thinking before they actually have data on the subject". Instead, the evidence is saying, "making this sort of prediction usually means that your prediction is wrong".

    1% 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