LSAT 123 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Naturalist: The recent claims that the Tasmanian tiger…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: The Tasmanian tiger doesn’t exist.

REASONING: We have no evidence that it exists.

ANALYSIS: Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. It’s possible the tiger exists even though we have no evidence that it does.

___________

1. It doesn’t matter why the last Tasmanian tigers went extinct. It only matters that sheep farming had a big impact.
    
   (i.e. if hunters got the last two tigers, that wouldn’t affect the argument)
2. This would weaken the argument if true. It might mean there were carcasses now and again, but scavengers ate them. (Tiger carcasses means there were recently living tigers).
3. The negation of this has no impact. Flipping an answer from true to false has to have an effect. One naturalist failing to look means nothing.
   Negation: Every naturalist but one looked systematically for evidence of the tiger’s survival. One didn’t, because he was paralyzed and could no longer do fieldwork.
4. CORRECT. If this isn’t true, the argument falls apart. It shows sheep farming didn’t have a devastating impact, because the tiger moved and may be alive elsewhere.
   Negation: The tigers have moved to another environment and adapted.
5. This would strengthen the argument, but it isn’t necessary. And like C, negating it has little impact. One naturalist hardly makes a difference.
   Negation: One experienced naturalist also thought he saw a Tasmanian tiger. He was drunk at the time, and didn’t have his glasses.