I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
I also eliminated answer choice a because it says "certain" plant and animal species because we don't know what certain species are. We basically don't want to let any species diminish
Okay, so what confused me about this question is that the conclusion contains a conditional statement. I'm used to seeing: "If X, then do Y. Therefore, we should do Y." and then I look for the answer choice that triggers the sufficient condition (the "if X"). However, this question is saying: Allowing a species we don't care about to go extinct might cause a species we do care about to go extinct as well, so [if we have an interest in preserving at least one species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.] Everything in brackets is the conclusion.
I typically don't like "kicking things up" to the domain, but I do think it's a useful strategy for this question. So I kick the conditional part of the conclusion (in bold) up into the domain and now, I imagine myself in a world where I have an interest in preserving at least one species. I also know that allowing a species I don't care about to go extinct (e.g. dogs) might cause a species I do care about to go extinct as well (e.g. cats). I conclude that I should try to preserve the maximum number of species. But why the maximum number of species? Why not just preserve the subset of species whose disappearance would affect the species I care about? (i.e. save dogs so I can save cats). I am looking for the answer choice with a rule/principle that justifies this 'maximum preservation' strategy.
A) this tells me something the author has already asked me to presume to be true. It would be the correct answer had the conclusion not been formulated as a conditional
B) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to take an action, not one that tells me not to take action.
C) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to try to not let any species go extinct, not a rule that says some extinctions are okay.
D) Correct! This is saying that unless I'm 100% sure that a change (a species going extinct) will not jeapordize anything important to me (a species I care about), then I should not allow that change (extinction) to occur. In that case, because any extinction might have repercussions on a species I care about (I just don't know), then I should try to prevent all extinctions (which is equivalent to preserving a maximum number of species).
E) The first part fits the rule I'm looking for because it tells us when we should undertake an action, but it doesn't lead to the right place. Who says that preserving a species I have an interest in will lead to "the best consequences in the immediate future"?
I chose E bc I thought of it as [likely to have best consequences] -> [undertake action]
It specifically says "likely" to not require full certainty that it does have the best consequences. So I thought it should fit with the premises of the stimulus bc they said:
1. We don't know enough ab the interrelationships of species (ie. we don't know what the unintended consequences of our actions could be)
2. We want to preserve some species
3. Allowing any species to perish could undermine the species we want to preserve
From these premises does it not follow that the course of action that is likely to have the best consequences is (at least attempting to) not allow any species to perish - aka preserve max amount of species ??????
It didn't specifcy whether we are talking about the best consequences for the whole world or if it's the best consequences in this context, so I took it to be an overinclusive rule that, when applied to this context, could mean the best consequences given the value/goal and other facts given in the stimulus. From there, I took it as the course of action likely to have the best consequences could reasonably be preserving the max number of species, so I thought the rule's NC matched the stimulus' conclusion.
Where did I go wrong??? Am I making too many assumptions - I thought I ate thinking of the possibility of an overinclusive conclusion and noticing "likely" in the AC.
I know all the questions on the LSAT have been verified 1000x so I know I'm wrong, but I don't understand how I could reason myself out of choosing the wrong answer in a question like this one. It makes no sense to me so if anyone has a diff explanation I could really use the help
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
149 comments
what. the. fuck.
I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
To better understand the correct answer choice, rewrite in contrapositive
Got it right but at what cost (it took me eleven minutes)
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
I feel like there may need to be more instruction on how to deal with creating / understanding abstract rules.
Can anyone help explain how D is correct? I don't understand why the "change to occur" statement relates to the stimulus
"Viability" in the Stimulus lead me to switching to D word on the basis of the word "jeopardize" in the correct answer.
I also eliminated answer choice a because it says "certain" plant and animal species because we don't know what certain species are. We basically don't want to let any species diminish
my head hurts so much
Okay, so what confused me about this question is that the conclusion contains a conditional statement. I'm used to seeing: "If X, then do Y. Therefore, we should do Y." and then I look for the answer choice that triggers the sufficient condition (the "if X"). However, this question is saying: Allowing a species we don't care about to go extinct might cause a species we do care about to go extinct as well, so [if we have an interest in preserving at least one species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.] Everything in brackets is the conclusion.
I typically don't like "kicking things up" to the domain, but I do think it's a useful strategy for this question. So I kick the conditional part of the conclusion (in bold) up into the domain and now, I imagine myself in a world where I have an interest in preserving at least one species. I also know that allowing a species I don't care about to go extinct (e.g. dogs) might cause a species I do care about to go extinct as well (e.g. cats). I conclude that I should try to preserve the maximum number of species. But why the maximum number of species? Why not just preserve the subset of species whose disappearance would affect the species I care about? (i.e. save dogs so I can save cats). I am looking for the answer choice with a rule/principle that justifies this 'maximum preservation' strategy.
A) this tells me something the author has already asked me to presume to be true. It would be the correct answer had the conclusion not been formulated as a conditional
B) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to take an action, not one that tells me not to take action.
C) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to try to not let any species go extinct, not a rule that says some extinctions are okay.
D) Correct! This is saying that unless I'm 100% sure that a change (a species going extinct) will not jeapordize anything important to me (a species I care about), then I should not allow that change (extinction) to occur. In that case, because any extinction might have repercussions on a species I care about (I just don't know), then I should try to prevent all extinctions (which is equivalent to preserving a maximum number of species).
E) The first part fits the rule I'm looking for because it tells us when we should undertake an action, but it doesn't lead to the right place. Who says that preserving a species I have an interest in will lead to "the best consequences in the immediate future"?
this one seriously took me forever but got it right..
I'm also confused by what JY means when he says "Trigger" it. How does this work? #feedback
Hi! I'm confused by what Prescriptive Conclusion means? How does this help with the argument etc? #Feedback #help
this explanation was soo confusing. can someone else explain how D is the correct answer in better terms??
picked A - these explanations confused me more than I was already..
I def suck at these
This q was sooo hard for me -
I chose E bc I thought of it as [likely to have best consequences] -> [undertake action]
It specifically says "likely" to not require full certainty that it does have the best consequences. So I thought it should fit with the premises of the stimulus bc they said:
1. We don't know enough ab the interrelationships of species (ie. we don't know what the unintended consequences of our actions could be)
2. We want to preserve some species
3. Allowing any species to perish could undermine the species we want to preserve
From these premises does it not follow that the course of action that is likely to have the best consequences is (at least attempting to) not allow any species to perish - aka preserve max amount of species ??????
It didn't specifcy whether we are talking about the best consequences for the whole world or if it's the best consequences in this context, so I took it to be an overinclusive rule that, when applied to this context, could mean the best consequences given the value/goal and other facts given in the stimulus. From there, I took it as the course of action likely to have the best consequences could reasonably be preserving the max number of species, so I thought the rule's NC matched the stimulus' conclusion.
Where did I go wrong??? Am I making too many assumptions - I thought I ate thinking of the possibility of an overinclusive conclusion and noticing "likely" in the AC.
I know all the questions on the LSAT have been verified 1000x so I know I'm wrong, but I don't understand how I could reason myself out of choosing the wrong answer in a question like this one. It makes no sense to me so if anyone has a diff explanation I could really use the help
Chose D initially and talked myself out of it and changed to C...
not good...
Convinced myself I was wrong </3
I thought I ate... It was the wrong anwear
what the hell
I feel as if the difficulty of these last 3-5 questions is double that of the previous ones.
And I was doing so well til these last four...