LSAT 151 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Principle: People should not feed wild animals because …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

ANALYSIS: The principle is basically: feeding -> dependence -> worse survival -> so don’t do it.

And we’re supposed to show why this specific case (feeding wild birds) doesn’t fall under this principle.

So if we want an exception, we need to mess with that chain for these birds specifically. There are only a few ways to do that:

1. Show that feeding them doesn’t actually make them dependent
2. Show that even if it does, it doesn’t hurt their survival
3. Or show that they’re already dependent anyway, so feeding isn’t causing the problem.

One of the above will be the answer.

Also notice that a lot of answers will try to distract you with irrelevant benefits or extra harms. The principle doesn’t care about those. It only cares about whether feeding harms the animals by making them dependent.

___________

1. If feeding makes them more vulnerable, that supports applying the principle. We’re supposed to show the principle doesn’t apply here.
2. Irrelevant. We don’t care about benefits to humans.
3. This also supports the principle by showing dependence.
4. How noble of them. The principle isn’t about other efforts though. Even if you’re doing everything else to save them, if you’re feeding them and it’s harming them, you shouldn’t do it.
5. CORRECT. If birds already need human food to survive, then feeding them isn’t creating harmful dependence. It’s just part of how they survive now. That undermines the whole reason behind the rule, so this situation is an exception.