LSAT 156 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Removing the regulations would likely not harm endangered species.

REASONING: The regulations discourage landowners from protecting endangered species, so removing them should help.

ANALYSIS: The argument focuses on one effect of the regulations: they make endangered species a financial burden, which discourages protection. From that, it concludes that removing the regulations would not harm the species.

But that’s only looking at one side. Even if the regulations discourage protection, they may still prevent harmful development. Removing them could encourage landowners to build on the land, which could harm endangered species even more.

So the flaw is ignoring the possibility that the regulations have competing effects—they may discourage protection in one way but still protect species in a stronger way overall.

___________

1. This is about confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, which isn’t the issue here.
2. The argument is about consequences, not values.
3. CORRECT. The argument ignores other effects of the regulations.
4. The distinction between developers and landowners isn’t central to the reasoning.
5. This is too narrow. The main issue is about endangered species and regulatory effects, not just landowners without species.