LSAT 118 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 118 - Section 3 - Question 08

December 2004

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT118 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
2%
161
B
2%
157
C
84%
167
D
9%
162
E
3%
161
128
142
157
 +Medium 146.785 +SubsectionMedium

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. To protect wildlife we must regulate such development in Figoria: future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats. Thus, development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.

Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use.

Summarize Argument
The development commission argues in favour of development. This is because wetland development might not adversely harm wildlife, and development is necessary for economic growth.

Notable Assumptions
The development commission assumes that an action carrying a potential harm should still be undertaken if it carries a distinct benefit. In this case, the development commission assumes economically beneficial development should be undertaken despite possibly being harmful to wildlife.

A
National resources should be regulated by international agreement when wildlife is endangered.
The development commission definitely doesn’t think international agreements should regulate how they use their national resources.
B
The right of future generations to have wildlife preserved supersedes the economic needs of individual nations.
The development committee thinks development should go ahead. They don’t consider the rights of future generations.
C
Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.
This tells us that until development proves harmful to wildlife, development should go ahead. That’s exactly what the development committee assumes when it says development might not harm wildlife.
D
Environmental regulation must aim at preventing any further environmental damage and cannot allow for the different degrees to which different nations have already harmed the environment.
We don’t care about some international comparative aspect. We care about whether or not development should go ahead in this situation.
E
It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources.
The development committee doesn’t think development will necessary deplete natural resources.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply