LR Question 10 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Fishery officials are still considering options for…
QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
FACTS:
- Officials want to eliminate pike, which could harm the local ecosystem.
- Officials won’t introduce a predator or drain the lake.
- Poison has already been tried. It made residents mad.
ANALYSIS: Stick to what you know. Some of the answers could be true, but only answer C is supported by the stimulus.
It makes sense. If the poison had eliminated the pike, then the officials wouldn’t need to consider other options.
___________
- We have no idea why officials ruled out draining the lake. Maybe it would have annoyed residents but caused no economic harm.
- We don’t know. It’s possible officials tried poison on another occasion.
- CORRECT. This is almost certainly true. Otherwise officials wouldn’t still be considering options to eliminate the pike.
- We can’t read the officials’ minds. We have no idea what they were thinking four years ago.
- This could explain why officials want to eliminate the pike. But it doesn’t have to be true. Maybe the officials just want to protect the ecosystem from damage.
More Resources for Most Strongly Supported Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Most Strongly Supported questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers most strongly supported questions.
I agree with Cmoe. I’m still considering law school. This doesn’t mean I was considering it from the beginning, I could of stopped and then started again last month and in that sense I’m still considering it (since last month). Same with the pike, they could have been eliminated and reintroduced. We just don’t know. That said, I can see the “essential” argument being slightly better, which means it is the answer.
I don’t understand this answer. The stimulius doesn’t state that poisoning the water was unsuccessful. It just states that people were upset about it remaining tainted for 4 months. The stimulates states that because of the tainted water the tourism economy suffered. I thought that justifies answer e in stating that the salmon and trout are essential to their economy.
A couple of points here:
(1) Yes, the stimulus isn’t explicit that the poisoning of the lake was unsuccessful. But, the stimulus is clear that the officials are “still” considering options for ridding the lake of the pike. If the poisoning were successful, then the pike would no longer be an issue.
(2) Just because the tainted water made the economy suffer, does not mean that the lake is essential to the economy. If the lake were essential, then the tourism economy wouldn’t just suffer, it would cease to exist. (Think conditional reasoning: A –> B, where A is the sufficient condition and B is the necessary/essential condition, ~B –> ~A.)
Also, as to (E) there is no evidence that salmon and trout even exist in Lake Davis. The first sentence of the stimulus indicates that the salmon & trout are in the “adjoining river system” and not necessarily in the lake itself. It is true that if the water in Lake Davis is tainted then tourism economy of the region suffers, but there is no evidence that this is due to salmon and trout population being affected.
This is correct, but misses a crucial word in E. It says “Lake Davis *area*”, which would include nearby areas such as the adjoining river system. Oftentimes a single word can change the entire meaning of an answer or stimulus on the LSAT.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.