Logical Reasoning

PT5 · S3 · Q21 Naturalist: For decades we have

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

Naturalist: For decades we have known that the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, have been approaching extinction on the South Island.

Conclusion

Humans are obliged to prevent the tuatara's extinction, even if it means killing many unendangered natural predators.

Evidence (because)

If the South Island tuatara are lost, an entire species will be lost, since new research indicates that the South Island tuatara are a distinct species found only in that location.

Evaluate

The premise to conclusion missing link is pretty straightforward, something like,

Or more simply as a should-rule: humans are obliged to prevent a species from going extinct.

There is a little whiff of Weighing Tradeoffs here, since the argument is indicating that in order to save the tuatara, we may have to kill many of their natural predators.

Thus, we might see an answer ranking those priorities, like,

Goal

Look for an idea that helps us say that we're obliged to save the tuatara, or one that says it's okay to kill the predators en route to saving the tuatara.

21.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the naturalists’ argumentation?

  1. In order to maximize the

    Opposite (if anything)

    The author is condoning killing off the tuatara's predators, but this principle would be saying that we should save all creatures.

    4% picked this

  2. When an animal is in

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is saying, "If saving the tuatara wouldn't interfere with the health / well-being of other animals, then we have an obligation". But the author is talking about killing the tuatara's predators, which of course WOULD interfere with the health / well-being of other animals. So this trigger doesn't match the argument.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The threat of local extinction

    Why this is right

    This is a weird answer that we'd ultimately come home to once we see all the others aren't viable. It is more or less the Weighing Tradeoffs answer we were anticipating. The author is okay with killing off the tuatara's predators, since they aren't endangered. We might cause a local extinction of the predators, and this principle is saying we're okay doing that. We have no obligation to prevent local extinctions. Meanwhile, we DO have an obligation to prevent global extinctions (i.e. genuine "extinction"). So this principle tells us that we DO need to prevent the extinction of the tuatara. To put it another way, if the tuatara goes extinct on South Island, then it is globally extinct, since it doesn't exist in any other location. Meanwhile, if the natural predators go extinct on South Island, it would only be a local extinction (since they are not endangered, meaning they presumably exist in other places as well).

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

    66% picked this

  4. Human activities that either intentionally

    No Impact / Opposite (if anything)

    This principle would forbid us from killing off the tuatara's natural predators, since it says we should curtail (i.e. stop) any activity that threatens the survival of a species. We might think, "Welllll, the predators aren't endangered, so killing off the ones on South Island isn't threatening the survival of the species". That's true, but this principle doesn't do anything to instruct us to save the tuatara. It only has the power to forbid activities, not to oblige us to do something protective.

    1% picked this

  5. Species that are found in

    Too Weak

    This is decent, since the tuatara is a species found only in one circumscribed geographical region (they're only on South Island). And meanwhile the unendangered predators are presumably found elsewhere also. But this principle only says then that "we should give more care and attention to the tuatara than to its predators". That's not nothing, but it's not as strong as the correct answer when it comes to mandating that we are obliged to save the tuatara.

    27% 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