Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q8 The fishing industry cannot

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 fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing.

Goal

Get an accurate count of seabirds killed by net fishing.

Plan

Institute a program in which the fishing industry turns in dead seabirds, the government examines them for toxins, thereby helping the fishing industry to know if the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

Evaluate

We want to think,

Maybe the fishing industry wouldn't cooperate at all. Maybe they'd cooperate to some extent, but the dead seabirds they turn in still wouldn't allow the govt to get an accurate count of how many birds are killed by net fishing.

After all, couldn't the fishing industry just turn in a few dead birds to see how they measure for toxins? If five out of five birds came back with lots of toxins, then it would be safe to assume that the fish are contaminated. There'd be no need to submit ALL the dead birds.

Goal

Let's find an answer that demonstrates that the proposed program would still not provide a complete and accurate count of the seabirds killed.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?

The seabirds killed by net
No Impact
We don't care whether it's one type of toxin or a variety of toxins in seabirds. We just want to know if the government will get an accurate count of how many seabirds are killed from fishing. This answer doesn't have any clear impact on the plan.
17% picked this
Correct
The fishing industry could learn
Why this is right
This is similar to the objection we raised above. This indicates that only a small sample of seabirds might suffice for the fishing industry to gain the information it needs about toxins. Thus, they wouldn't need to turn in all the bird carcasses, and an accurate total count wouldn't necessarily be achieved.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
59% picked this
The government could gain valuable
No Impact
We're focused on the stated Goal of getting an accurate count of the number of dead seabirds. If the Plan also leads to other benefits, cool, but that has nothing to do with our current task. Learning about sources of toxins doesn't address whether the industry will report all carcasses or just a few, affecting the count's accuracy.
4% picked this
The fish caught in a
No Impact
The Plan is probably assuming that in many cases the birds and the fish will have the same toxins. After all, the fish all swim in the same area and the birds are eating those fish. So this seems to state a weak idea our common sense would already know. It definitely doesn't give us any way to argue that this Plan will not result in an accurate count of dead seabirds.
12% picked this
The government would be willing
Opposite (if Anything)
The government's willingness to certify non-contaminated fish based on tests would offer a further incentive for the fishing industry to cooperate, increasing the chances that the Plan would achieve its Goal.
8% 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