LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 02

February 2000

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:24

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
PT108 S3 Q02
+LR
Weaken +Weak
A
2%
158
B
1%
140
C
94%
167
D
2%
160
E
1%
154
130
139
148
 +Easier 147.273 +SubsectionMedium

Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the perfect site for the proposed astronomical observatory. The summit would accommodate the complex as currently designed, with some room left for expansion. There are no large cities near the mountain, so neither smog nor artificial light interferes with atmospheric transparency. Critics claim that Mount Shalko is a unique ecological site, but the observatory need not be a threat to endemic life-forms. In fact, since it would preclude recreational use of the mountain, it should be their salvation. It is estimated that 200,000 recreational users visit the mountain every year, posing a threat to the wildlife.

Summarize Argument
The astronomer claims that Mount Shalko is a perfect site for a new proposed observatory. The support follows two lines of reasoning.
First, the site is suitable. There’s enough space for the building and no smog or light pollution from nearby cities.
Second, it would protect ecology, not harm it as some critics fear. The mountain currently has many recreational users who threaten its ecology, but recreational use would be precluded by the observatory.

Notable Assumptions
The astronomer assumes that the site would remain suitable, for example that no new cities are planned to be built nearby in the near future.
The astronomer also assumes that the process of building the observatory, and the building’s ongoing presence on the mountain, wouldn’t harm the mountain’s ecology more than the current recreational use does.

A
More than a dozen insect and plant species endemic to Mount Shalko are found nowhere else on earth.
This does not weaken the argument, because the astronomer never contests the point that Mount Shalko is a unique ecological site. Instead, the argument is that the observatory would actually protect the mountain’s ecology by precluding recreational use.
B
A coalition of 14 different groups, as diverse as taxpayer organizations and hunting associations, opposes the building of the new observatory.
This does not weaken the argument, because the number or type of people who oppose building the observatory has no bearing on the astronomer’s argument. Just because there’s broad opposition, that tells us nothing about the merits of the astronomer’s claims.
C
Having a complex that covers most of the summit, as well as having the necessary security fences and access road on the mountain, could involve just as much ecological disruption as does the current level of recreational use.
This weakens the argument by undermining the astronomer’s claim that the observatory would protect the mountain’s ecology by eliminating recreational use. If the observatory could be just as harmful, then there’s no ecological benefit to building it.
D
The building of the observatory would not cause the small towns near Mount Shalko eventually to develop into a large city, complete with smog, bright lights, and an influx of recreation seekers.
This does not weaken the argument, because it partially affirms the astronomer’s assumption that no new cities will soon develop near Mount Shalko. In fact, by doing so, this strengthens the argument.
E
A survey conducted by a team of park rangers concluded that two other mountains in the same general area have more potential for recreational use than Mount Shalko.
This does not weaken the argument because whether or not other nearby mountains are suitable for recreational use is irrelevant. Mount Shalko is already used for recreation, and the observatory would stop that use. This doesn’t change any of that.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply