Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT47.S1.Q02 - despite increasing international efforts
Sarah889
Alum Member
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-02/
I chose A for this and literally had to check the answer key three times because I thought I was seeing things. I cannot figure out why A is wrong and B is right.
This is a weaken question.
The stimulus says that there have been certain international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals. In spite of these efforts, apparently the extinction rate is still rising. The argument concludes that these efforts are wasted.
After reading the premises, I'm thinking "Oh, great! This is perfect-- What an assumption for this argument to make! I am definitely anticipating that the answer choice is going to have something to do with pointing out that, just because these efforts are aimed at protecting natural habitats, does not necessarily entail that these efforts are also aimed at preventing the extinction rate from rising!" Then I read the conclusion that claims that the efforts were wasted. At this point, I'm 100% anticipating answer choice A.
The international efforts are aimed at protecting the natural habitats of endangered species. This does not necessarily mean these efforts are also trying to prevent the extinction rate from increasing. I mean, in the real world, it is most likely the case that this is also the goal, but in LSAT world, I just don't see how we can make that assumption. What if these efforts were to satisfy the hippie/vegan population so that they think the government is prioritizing the protection of these natural habitats? Or what if their efforts were because there is some new law that requires the protection of these habitats? There could be a number of (yes, crazy yet) logically sufficient reasons for why they are protecting the natural habitats of these species that have nothing to do with the extinction rate. If the two concepts (protecting natural habitats and preventing extinction from increasing) were to be related in terms of our argument, wouldn't the first statement have to say "Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species in order to maintain or decrease the extinction rate, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise"?
A- Points out the assumption. Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species. That was what their efforts were doing according to the stimulus. This answer choice points out how irrelevant the statement about the extinction rate increasing is to their efforts.
B- Animal refugees are not natural habitats. They are man-made sanctuaries that artificially mimic natural habitats. I rendered this answer choice as irrelevant because it is not even talking about the same subject matter.
I am very confused. I considered this to be an easy question that took me all of 20 seconds and even after reviewing it over and over again, I cannot for the life of me understand it.
I chose A for this and literally had to check the answer key three times because I thought I was seeing things. I cannot figure out why A is wrong and B is right.
This is a weaken question.
The stimulus says that there have been certain international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals. In spite of these efforts, apparently the extinction rate is still rising. The argument concludes that these efforts are wasted.
After reading the premises, I'm thinking "Oh, great! This is perfect-- What an assumption for this argument to make! I am definitely anticipating that the answer choice is going to have something to do with pointing out that, just because these efforts are aimed at protecting natural habitats, does not necessarily entail that these efforts are also aimed at preventing the extinction rate from rising!" Then I read the conclusion that claims that the efforts were wasted. At this point, I'm 100% anticipating answer choice A.
The international efforts are aimed at protecting the natural habitats of endangered species. This does not necessarily mean these efforts are also trying to prevent the extinction rate from increasing. I mean, in the real world, it is most likely the case that this is also the goal, but in LSAT world, I just don't see how we can make that assumption. What if these efforts were to satisfy the hippie/vegan population so that they think the government is prioritizing the protection of these natural habitats? Or what if their efforts were because there is some new law that requires the protection of these habitats? There could be a number of (yes, crazy yet) logically sufficient reasons for why they are protecting the natural habitats of these species that have nothing to do with the extinction rate. If the two concepts (protecting natural habitats and preventing extinction from increasing) were to be related in terms of our argument, wouldn't the first statement have to say "Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species in order to maintain or decrease the extinction rate, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise"?
A- Points out the assumption. Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species. That was what their efforts were doing according to the stimulus. This answer choice points out how irrelevant the statement about the extinction rate increasing is to their efforts.
B- Animal refugees are not natural habitats. They are man-made sanctuaries that artificially mimic natural habitats. I rendered this answer choice as irrelevant because it is not even talking about the same subject matter.
I am very confused. I considered this to be an easy question that took me all of 20 seconds and even after reviewing it over and over again, I cannot for the life of me understand it.
Comments
I think the focus in your reasoning for a weakening question should be shifted. Instead of looking for an assumption made within the premises, look for assumptions between the premise and conclusion and expose the space between the two concepts. We're trying to use the premise in the argument and make that less supportive of the conclusion.
Below is my rationale lay-out for this question:
Argument Summary:
Premise: Despite increasing efforts to protect habitats of endangered species, the rate that species become extinct continue to rise.
Conclusion: Efforts are wasted.
Pre-phrase - We're overlooking the fact that the efforts are being directed at the species that are endangered already. This group is by definition already in danger of extinction (before the efforts even began). It will likely be the case that the rate will continue to increase because of the group you're dealing with is already at risk. What a "rate" can't tell you is much about the individual data points within the set that make up that rate. It is entirely possible that a few data points can in fact result in many cases where the efforts were in fact NOT wasted (remember, we're trying to weaken the argument - not expose a necessary assumption). If it is true that some animals have been saved as a result of these efforts, the support for the conclusion that these efforts are wasted become less supported. This is what ultimately makes (B) the correct answer choice.
(A) This is a comparative statement between capabilities of scientists between today and "ever before." This actually doesn't do anything to our argument. It just gives us background/more detail about how well we're able to implement the efforts discussed in the stimulus.
(C) Worthless info. Doesn't do anything to the argument.
(D) Tangential point about "many countries" and the benefits to tourism - no one cares.
(E) This seems to provide more detail about the implementation of these efforts but this doesn't help with weakening the support in the argument.
I hope this was helpful!
But B specifically says that it is due to the establishment of animal refugees. If these refugees have to be established, then they are not natural. Therefore, they are not natural habitats. I don't see how we can assume that these man-made established refugees fall into the category of protected natural habitats. When I think of protecting natural habitats, I think of laws being passed to limit human activity in those areas or eliminating predators in those areas. To recreate these habitats is not to protect the natural habitats. It's to incorporate new, artificial habitats. To me, these are two totally different ideas.
If the wording was different in B, I do follow your logic as to why it would be correct. I just need to reconcile the differing concepts.
Also, wouldn't negating an underlying assumption qualify as weakening the argument? The argument clearly makes a few unwarranted assumptions, and I considered the correlative relationship between the natural habitats protection and extinction rate to be one of them.
Thanks again.
I also don't read "establishment" to necessarily mean "artificial." The National Parks were established under Teddy Roosevelt, but we definitely didn't build them. That land was legally set aside for the purposes of designating certain land as National Parks. That's how I read "establishment" here.