LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 16

October 2012

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

Target time: 1:07

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
PT137 S3 Q16	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff Math +Math	A 4% 155 B 3% 154 C 8% 157 D 2% 158 E 83% 165	140 148 157	+Medium	146.416 +SubsectionMedium

Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, because manipulating the environment to make it easier for an endangered species to survive in a habitat invariably makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive in that habitat.

Summarize Argument

The author argues that experts should not change natural habitats to help endangered species because doing so always comes at the expense of nonendangered ones.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument fails to consider the possibility that helping endangered species is higher-priority than helping nonendangered ones. By definition, endangered species are at greater risk of extinction and likely need more support. Refusing to change a habitat to protect them, especially when nonendangered species can probably thrive elsewhere, overlooks the urgency of preventing extinction.

fails to consider that wildlife management experts probably know best how to facilitate the survival of an endangered species in a habitat

This is irrelevant because the argument doesn’t question experts’ ability to help endangered species. It’s only concerned with the negative effect it would have on other species.

fails to recognize that a nonendangered species can easily become an endangered species

This possibility does not pose a problem for the argument. The author recognizes that nonendangered species can be harmed since the author advocates for prioritizing their protection.

overlooks the possibility that saving an endangered species in a habitat is incompatible with preserving the overall diversity of species in that habitat

This is irrelevant since the author doesn’t advocate for saving an endangered species, but rather, argues that endangered species should not be saved if it means interfering with their habitat.

presumes, without providing justification, that the survival of each endangered species is equally important to the health of the environment

The author doesn’t equate anything to the health of the environment. He only presumes that endangered species are not higher-priority than nonendangered ones.

takes for granted that preserving a currently endangered species in a habitat does not have higher priority than preserving species in that habitat that are not endangered

This describes how the author fails to consider that saving a species in danger of extinction may be more important than helping species that aren’t at risk.

LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 16

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel