LSAT 151 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 06

September 2018

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:21

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
PT151 S3 Q06
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Link Assumption +LinkA
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
83%
162
B
1%
149
C
1%
153
D
2%
151
E
14%
158
125
139
153
 +Easier 146.292 +SubsectionMedium

Watanabe: To protect the native kokanee salmon in the lake, we must allow fishing of native trout. Each mature trout eats about 250 mature kokanee annually.

Lopez: The real problem is mysis shrimp, which were originally introduced into the lake as food for mature kokanee; but mysis eat plankton—young kokanees’ food. The young kokanee are starving to death. So eradicating the shrimp is preferable to allowing trout fishing.

Summarize Argument
Lopez concludes eliminating non-native mysis shrimp would be better for the kokanee salmon population than allowing fishing for native trout. Why? Because while trout eat mature kokanee, mysis shrimp eat plankton, which lowers plankton levels enough that young kokanee salmon starve.

Notable Assumptions
Lopez assumes eliminating mysis shrimp and thus allowing more young kokanee to avoid starvation would be better for the kokanee population than fishing for native trout and thus allowing more adult kokanee to survive predation. This means assuming that removing the mysis shrimp would leave much more plankton available for young kokanee to eat.

A
Eliminating a non-native species from a habitat in which it threatens a native species is preferable to any other method of protecting the threatened native species.
This strong principle supports Lopez’s argument. Since the mysis shrimp is non-native and threatens the native kokanee population, it implies removing the shrimp is the best way to protect the kokanee.
B
When trying to protect the food supply of a particular species, it is best to encourage the method that will have the quickest results, all else being equal.
Without more information, this doesn’t strengthen or weaken Lopez’s argument. It’s not suggested that allowing trout fishing would protect the kokanee’s food supply, nor is it indicated which would work faster—removing the shrimp or removing the trout.
C
The number of species in a given habitat should not be reduced if at all possible.
This weakens Lopez’s argument. It implies other ways of helping the kokanee population—allowing trout fishing, for example—are preferable to removing a whole species, which Lopez advocates.
D
No non-native species should be introduced into a habitat unless all the potential effects of that introduction have been considered.
This supports not introducing mysis shrimp in the first place, but it says nothing about removing species that are already present. Since the mysis shrimp have already been introduced, this principle doesn’t apply.
E
When seeking to increase the population of a given species, it is most important that one preserve the members of the species who are in the prime reproductive stage of their lives.
If anything, this weakens Lopez’s argument. It implies mature kokanee should be prioritized, suggesting it would be better to allow trout fishing than to remove mysis shrimp.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply