LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 2003

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:36

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
PT127 S2 Q23
+LR
Inference +Inf
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
2%
156
B
22%
162
C
10%
160
D
9%
160
E
55%
167
153
162
172
 +Hardest 146.61 +SubsectionMedium

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. But they will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of their favorite insects and fruit.

Summary

First sentence - “Without” is used just like “unless” here, so it means:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct

Second sentence - “If” introduces the sufficient condition:

Tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct

The last sentence tells us why squirrel monkeys “flourish” in second-growth forest. But it is not a conditional and does not connect to the conditionals in the first two sentences.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

We can connect the first two sentences, although you need to do the contrapositive of one or the other to see the connection:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved

OR

If tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct → there was intervention of conservationists

A
No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.

Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.

B
At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.

If the monkeys survive, we know that second-growth forests have been preserved. And we know that this implies the conservationists intervened. But we don’t know exactly *how* the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. The forests were preserved, sure; but we don’t know that the conservationists helped to preserve the forests.

C
Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.

We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.

D
If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.

This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.

E
Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.

(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply