LSAT 108 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the perfect site …

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: Mount Shalko is the perfect location for the observatory.

REASONING:

• The summit has enough space.
• There are no nearby large cities, so visibility is good.
• Critics worry about ecology, but it might actually protect wildlife by stopping recreational use. That’s because recreational users currently threaten the wildlife.

ANALYSIS: The biggest point of contention here is about the harm to wildlife.

The astronomer says that 200K recreational users visit the mountain every year, which harms wildlife. So the observatory might actually improve it.

But … wouldn’t people be visiting the observatory too? I mean, the Griffith Observatory is a really famous landmark in LA.

And in addition to the potential visitors to the observatory, constructing the building itself might also be really damaging.

The argument is assuming that the observatory isn’t going to cause equal or greater damage to wildlife. So the best weakener will show that the observatory may be just as ecologically disruptive as the recreational use it replaces.

___________

1. This confirms that Mount Shalko is ecologically unique, but the astronomer already addresses that concern by claiming the observatory would protect endemic life. It doesn’t show the observatory would harm them.
2. Opposition from many groups doesn’t prove the astronomer’s reasoning is wrong. People can oppose something for weak or irrelevant reasons.
3. CORRECT. If the observatory, fences, and access road could disrupt the ecology just as much as the current recreational use, then the observatory may not be the “salvation” of the endemic life-forms. It weakens the claim that replacing recreation with an observatory would protect the wildlife.
4. This removes a possible problem with the observatory. If building it would not create nearby city growth, smog, lights, or more recreation seekers, that actually helps the astronomer.
5. Other mountains having more recreational potential doesn’t show that Mount Shalko’s current recreational use is harmless or that the observatory would harm wildlife.