LSAT 138 – Section 4 – Question 06

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 2:03

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
PT138 S4 Q06
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
A
4%
158
B
79%
164
C
12%
160
D
1%
158
E
4%
164
123
141
159
+Easier 146.393 +SubsectionMedium

After an oil spill, rehabilitation centers were set up to save sea otters by removing oil from them. The effort was not worthwhile, however, since 357 affected live otters and 900 that had died were counted, but only 222 affected otters, or 18 percent of those counted, were successfully rehabilitated and survived. Further, the percentage of all those affected that were successfully rehabilitated was much lower still, because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the effort to save sea otters by removing oil from them wasn’t worthwhile. He supports this by saying that only 18% of counted otters were successfully rehabilitated and that this percentage is actually even lower because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that a low success rate means that the rehabilitation effort wasn’t worthwhile, ignoring the possibility that a small number of rehabilitated otters might have significant positive ecological value or long-term benefits.

He also assumes that the reported number of otters is accurate, without addressing the possibility that the dead otters that were never found can’t be accurately counted. (?)

Note: We’re looking for the answer choice that “calls into question evidence offered in support of the conclusion.”

A
Do sea otters of species other than those represented among the otters counted exist in areas that were not affected by the oil spill?

The author’s argument only addresses rehabilitation efforts among the otter population that was affected by the oil spill. Surely other otter species exist in other places, but their existence doesn’t call into question the evidence offered in support of the author’s conclusion.

B
How is it possible to estimate, of the sea otters that died, how many were not found?

This calls into question the author’s evidence. He claims that the percentage of successfully rehabilitated otters is much lower than 18% because only a fifth of the dead otters were ever found. But how can he know that this number is accurate if the otters were never found?

C
Did the process of capturing sea otters unavoidably involve trapping and releasing some otters that were not affected by the spill?

Like (A), the author’s argument is only concerned with those otters that were affected by the spill. The effects of the rehabilitation process on other otters doesn’t call into question his evidence, which only addresses affected otters.

D
Were other species of wildlife besides sea otters negatively affected by the oil spill?

The author’s evidence only addresses sea otters that were affected by the oil spill. Whether other species of wildlife were also affected is irrelevant, since the rehabilitation efforts in question only involved sea otters.

E
What was the eventual cost, per otter rehabilitated, of the rehabilitation operation?

The author doesn’t mention cost as a factor in his assessment of whether the rehabilitation effort was worthwhile. (E) thus doesn’t call into question the author’s evidence, which only addresses the percentage of otters that were rehabilitated.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply