LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 23

June 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:02

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
PT106 S2 Q23
+LR
+Exp
Except +Exc
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
15%
161
B
1%
157
C
1%
160
D
81%
166
E
2%
158
129
145
160
 +Medium 147.566 +SubsectionMedium

Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife. Evidence is furnished by the Masai-Mara reserve in Kenya, where baboons that use the garbage dumps on the reserve as a food source mature faster and have more offspring than do baboons on the reserve that do not scavenge on garbage.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author presents the hypothesis that garbage dumps don’t harm wildlife. This hypothesis is supported by observations of baboons in the Masai-Mara game reserve : baboons who scavenge in the reserve’s garbage dumps grow faster and have more offspring than baboons who don’t eat garbage.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that eating garbage is not causing other harms to the baboons who scavenge in dumps. In other words, the author assumes that growth speed and number of offspring accurately represent the baboons’ health.
The author also assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the differences between the baboons who eat garbage and the baboons who do not.
Finally, the author assumes that, even if the Masai-Mara baboons aren’t harmed by garbage, observations of these baboons can support a conclusion about wildlife in general.

A
The baboons that feed on the garbage dump are of a different species from those that do not.
This weakens the argument, because it proposes an alternative explanation for the differences between the scavenging and non-scavenging baboons. If we can’t accurately compare the impact of garbage between these groups, the argument is weakened.
B
The life expectancy of baboons that eat garbage is significantly lower than that of baboons that do not eat garbage.
Like (C) and (E), this weakens the argument by adding a new way that eating garbage could harm the baboons’ health. If the scavenging baboons grow faster and have more offspring, but also die faster, it becomes much harder to say that garbage does not harm them.
C
The cholesterol level of garbage-eating baboons is dangerously higher than that of baboons that do not eat garbage.
Like (B) and (E), this weakens the argument by giving us another example of how garbage could be harming the baboons. This rebuts the author’s assumption that growth speed and birth rates are the only relevant markers of the baboons’ health, thus weakening.
D
The population of hyenas that live near unregulated garbage landfills north of the reserve has doubled in the last two years.
This does not weaken the argument. If these garbage dumps are helping the hyena population grow, that may even strengthen by demonstrating another species that isn’t harmed. Even if not, this doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the argument, so does not weaken.
E
The rate of birth defects for the baboon population on the reserve has doubled since the first landfills were opened.
Like (B) and (C), this weakens the argument by demonstrating a harm possibly caused by the garbage dumps that the author has overlooked. This harm isn’t just to the scavenging baboons, but the timing relative to the dumps opening suggests a possible causal link, thus weakening.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply