LSAT 151 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Watanabe: To protect the native kokanee salmon …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

ANALYSIS: Watanabe thinks we have to allow fishing of trout to protect the salmon, because the trout eat a lot of salmon.

Lopez thinks eradicating shrimp is better than allowing trout fishing to protect the salmon. This is because the shrimp are eating the young salmons’ food, so they’re starving.

Lopez is not just saying the shrimp are a problem. They’re arguing something stronger: eradicating the shrimp is preferable to allowing trout fishing. So the principle should help justify preferring one solution over the other and connect how to choose between strategies.

___________

1. CORRECT. If a harmful non-native species should be removed rather than other protective methods used, then eradicating mysis shrimp is preferable to trout fishing.
2. Lopez never argues her proposal would work faster.
3. Eradicating shrimp would reduce the number of species, so this actually undermines Lopez’s conclusion.
4. This is about whether introducing shrimp was a mistake. Lopez’s conclusion is about what should be done now.
5. This shifts the focus to mature salmon versus young salmon. Lopez’s argument is about what strategy to use to protect the salmon species as a whole.