LSAT 121 – Section 4 – Question 12

LSAT 121 - Section 4 - Question 12

December 2005

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

Target time: 1:03

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
PT121 S4 Q12
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
160
B
91%
164
C
5%
160
D
2%
156
E
1%
154
120
133
147
 +Easiest 146.544 +SubsectionMedium

Some species are called “indicator species” because the loss of a population of such a species serves as an early warning of problems arising from pollution. Environmentalists tracking the effects of pollution have increasingly paid heed to indicator species; yet environmentalists would be misguided if they attributed the loss of a population to pollution in all cases. Though declines in population often do signal environmental degradation, they are just as often a result of the natural evolution of an ecosystem. We must remember that, in nature, change is the status quo.

Summarize Argument
The author argues that a decrease in an indicator species’ population should not always be attributed to pollution. While a decline in one of these species could be because of pollution, it could also result from the ecosystem naturally evolving, as change and evolution are constant, natural processes.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that a decrease in the population of an indicator species should not always be credited to pollution: “environmentalists would be misguided if they attributed the loss of a population to pollution in all cases.”

A
Environmentalists sometimes overreact to the loss of a specific population.
The author does not claim that environmentalists overreact to the loss of a specific population.
B
The loss of a specific population should not always be interpreted as a sign of environmental degradation.
This rephrases our conclusion. It tells us that a decrease in a specific population should not be attributed to pollution in every case.
C
Environmentalists’ use of indicator species in tracking the effects of pollution is often problematic.
The author’s conclusion is not that the use of indicator species in tracking the effects of pollution is inherently problematic, but that environmentalists should not attribute population loss to pollution in every single case.
D
The loss of a specific population is often the result of natural changes in an ecosystem and in such cases should not be resisted.
The author does not make any claim about whether population loss should be resisted.
E
The loss of a specific population as a result of pollution is simply part of nature’s status quo.
The author makes a distinction between population loss due to environmental degradation and population loss due to natural evolution. (E) confuses these ideas and makes an incorrect claim.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 121 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply