Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S4 · P1 · Q1 Forest Preservation

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Forests are among the world’s most valuable resources, both in a narrowly economic sense and in a broader, ecological sense.

Topic

Forests’ value, common misconceptions about their ecological functions, and analysis of claims about preservation versus economic use.

Framework

Present Debate (the passage examines various claims about forests and weighs arguments on both sides)

Main Point

In order to make wise policy decisions about preserving forests, we need a grounded understanding of both economic and ecological claims, and not all common arguments (like the oxygen myth) hold up, though biodiversity preservation remains a strong case for conservation. The Most Valuable Sentence: (End of P1)

P1: Forests’ Value and the Need for Clear Debate

Forests are crucial for both the economy and ecology, providing products and environmental benefits, but rational policy requires strong understanding of both sides of the conservation argument, especially regarding common claims about oxygen and biodiversity.

P2: The Oxygen Myth

Despite the common belief that forests are essential for oxygen production, this is a myth—forests on the whole do not create a net increase in oxygen because the decomposition cycle balances things out.

P3: Biodiversity and Its Importance

Preserving forests may be important for guarding undiscovered plants that could aid medicine, and many see protecting biodiversity as a moral or intrinsic good, regardless of economic utility.

1.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

  1. Correct

    Arguments concerning the economic use

    Why this is right

    This is a pretty lame main point, because rather than "these arguments must be carefully examined", we should be hearing, "I've carefully examined these arguments, and they don't hold up". But it ends up being our best available answer. We know that the last couple sentences of the 1st paragraph are the Framing Ideas that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs are unpacking. This answer sounds like the sentence in the 1st paragraph where we got the holy Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently): If well-grounded policy decisions are to be made concerning which forests must be preserved and how much forest must be preserved, policy makers should have a comprehensive understanding of the arguments for and against the use of forests. The rest of the passage focuses on two specific claims and tries to provide context for a fuller understanding of those issues.

    Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    87% picked this

  2. The dangers posed to biodiversity

    Too Strong: insignificant

    This sounds way too harsh. The author is diplomatically debunking a couple alarmist claims that go into the forest debate. But this answer makes it sound like the author is sneering at attempts to have stricter regulation, saying "The considerable dangers posed by deforestation are tiny when compared to the huge dangers posed by ill-conceived attempts to more strictly regulate forests". The author never discussed any huge dangers posed by more regulation.

    2% picked this

  3. Careful review of official statistics

    Too Narrow: only 2nd claim

    This answer only deals with the content of paragraph 3 and 4. It doesn't have a way to wrap its arms around the discussion about forests being the lungs of the earth. The author set out to debunk two claims that are ill-informed contributions to the debate over forest regulation. This answer only deals with the second claim.

    7% picked this

  4. While there is some hope

    Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow

    At the end of the 3rd paragraph, the author is saying that one can make a case that we should preserve forests' biodiversity for the sake of our own benefit (medical applications) or for the sake of the fact that nature made these diverse forests and it would be wrong for us to destroy it. The author never indicates that she agrees more with one rationale than the other, whereas this answer makes it seem like she is strongly on the side of defending forests on moral grounds. In addition to never committing to this position, this certainly isn't the main focus of the passage.

    0% picked this

  5. Assuming biodiversity is an instrumental

    Out of Scope: ineffective way

    The author never discusses the specific effects of stricter regulation in order to argue that this method is an ineffective way of preserving biodiversity. The author is just saying the urge to impose stricter regulations is based in part on two claims that merit special scrutiny, since they both seem wrong or overblown.

    3% 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