LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 16

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:57

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q16
+LR
Evaluate +Eval
Sampling +Smpl
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
86%
168
B
6%
161
C
2%
157
D
4%
160
E
1%
159
141
150
159
 +Medium 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

The authors of a recent article examined warnings of an impending wave of extinctions of animal species within the next 100 years. These authors say that no evidence exists to support the idea that the rate of extinction of animal species is now accelerating. They are wrong, however. Consider only the data on fishes: 40 species and subspecies of North American fishes have vanished in the twentieth century, 13 between 1900 and 1950, and 27 since 1950.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that, contrary to the recent article, the rate of animal extinctions is indeed accelerating. She supports this hypothesis with the observation that more fish species have gone extinct since 1950 than went extinct between 1900-1950.

Notable Assumptions
The author takes a very small sample—the number of fish extinctions in each of two time periods—and assumes that they accurately reflect a trend toward increasing extinctions of animals in general. This means she assumes that fish extinctions weren’t significantly higher prior to 1900, and also that the rate of extinction hasn’t now started to slow down. She also assumes that the rate of fish extinctions accurately represents what’s happening with other animal species more broadly.

A
Were the fish species and subspecies that became extinct unrepresentative of animal species in general with regard to their pattern of extinction?
If yes, then there’s no reason to conclude that the overall rate of animal extinctions is increasing. If no, then the data on fish suggest more strongly that extinction is accelerating for other animals, too.
B
How numerous were the populations in 1950 of the species and subspecies of North American fishes that have become extinct since 1950?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone completely extinct, and how the total number of extinctions is changing over time.
C
Did any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century originate in regions outside of North America?
Irrelevant—the origins of those fishes have no bearing on the extinction numbers being reported.
D
What proportion of North American fish species and subspecies whose populations were endangered in 1950 are now thriving?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with the population dynamics of any individual species. The argument is focused solely on whether or not populations have gone extinct, and how the number of extinctions is changing over time.
E
Were any of the species or subspecies of North American fishes that became extinct in the twentieth century commercially important?
Irrelevant—the argument isn’t concerned with which fish species went extinct or what those species might have been used for. The argument is focused solely on the number of extinctions and how that number is changing over time.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply