Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q17 Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection

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

Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new, more restrictive definition of the term “wetlands.” But this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do.

Conclusion

The critics of this bill don't really care what happens to our wetlands.

Evidence

They oppose the bill because it changes the term "wetlands" to something that is more restricting, more limiting, so they're just quibbling over semantics.

Evaluate

Is that "semantics"? That would be like if people who opposed DoMA (1996's Defense of Marriage Act) said and the respondent was like, .

The definition IS substantive!

In the case of DoMA, it affects whether or not same sex marriages are legal. In the case of the wetlands bill, it affects where companies can / can't develop.

Goal

Look for an answer that sounds perhaps like an Ad Hominem answer, suggesting that our author is hastily dismissing her opponent's concerns as "quibbling", when they could easily be substantive concerns about what the negative effects of a more restrictive definition of 'wetlands' would mean for the area.

17.

The politician’s reply to the opponents of the wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

  1. It falsely identifies the motives

    Too Strong: critics' motives = all motives

    The author never makes it seem like what is motivating the critics is motivating all people who criticize the bill. Only the critics are discussed.

    23% picked this

  2. Correct

    It does not adequately recognize

    Why this is right

    Just as arguing over the definition of marriage wouldn't be "quibbling over semantics" (which means fighting over tiny, hair-splitting differences in language), arguing over the definition of what will / won't be considered 'wetlands' is the whole point of this bill. The author can't evade the argument by pretending like his opponents are just quibbling, rather than voicing serious concerns about the restricted definition of wetlands. His opponents would probably be responding, "This isn't petty semantics. I'm glad that in the wetlands areas that would still be covered by this new definition that restrictions would be tighter, but I'm much more concerned by how many areas would no longer be considered 'wetlands' under this new definition. You'll be opening up areas to development that were formerly protected wetlands!"

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

    68% picked this

  3. It assumes without justification that

    Out of Scope: profit

    The author thinks his opponents are trifling, but he's not saying that they are trying to profit off this argument. (His opponents sound like the more staunch environmentalists, who are mad that this new definition will leave formerly protected wetlands unprotected -- not a lot of profit motive in the world of ecological conservation)

    3% picked this

  4. It fails to provide a

    Not a Flaw

    This author is saying "the new, more restrictive definition is fine --- these fools are just quibbling over tiny stuff, like wording". She doesn't need to defend a less restrictive definition, since she's not arguing in favor of one.

    4% picked this

  5. It attempts to defend the

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: author of the bill The paragraph never mentions who authored the bill.

    2% 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