LSAT 158 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Some of the rare pygmy bears should be moved …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: We should move some of the bears to the neighboring island.

REASONING: The bears risk extinction, and moving them is the only viable way to save them.

ANALYSIS: The argument is: bears risk extinction -> moving them is the only way to save them -> we should move them.

You might be thinking “duh, obviously we should try to save a species that’s at risk of extinction”. But let me raise you a challenge:

• What if moving the bears would threaten species on the neighboring island?
• What if we shouldn’t care about extinction?
• What if moving the bears would require very expensive resources?

Then it doesn’t seem so obvious that we should move them. That’s exactly what Principle questions are testing. You need a rule that allows you to infer that the conclusion is what we should do.

Just because something is the only way doesn’t mean we should do it – unless we accept a rule that we should do whatever best prevents extinction.

Note also that the stimulus never tells us that moving the bears will save them. It’s just the most viable way. So be wary of answers that are too strong.

___________

1. The argument is only about pygmy bears, so this is irrelevant.
2. This gives us a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for moving animals. In other words, it sets a condition for moving animals but doesn’t say we should move them.
3. CORRECT. If something is the most likely way to prevent extinction, we should do it. This follows the stimulus exactly.
4. The stimulus only discussed a rare species (pygmy bears), but made no comparisons to or evaluations of more common species.
5. This is too weak. It only tells us that it’s permissible, not that it should be done.