LSAT 17 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection bill…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Critics don’t care about wetlands.

REASONING: Critics oppose the bill because it restricts the definition of wetlands. Yet the bill also increases protection for wetlands.

ANALYSIS: How we define something can be very important. If we adopt a very narrow definition of wetlands then very few places might benefit from the increased protections. All areas that are no longer classified as wetlands might be much worse off after the new legislation is passed.

___________

1. Not at all. The politician doesn’t even mention people opposed to all conservation.
2. CORRECT. Yes. If we define wetlands too narrowly then many actual wetlands won’t be protected.
3. The politician didn’t claim to know the real motives of the opponents of the bill.
4. The defense offered is that wetlands will now be more protected. The politician claims that the bill is a net benefit for wetlands.
5. The politician did defend the bill: it offers new protections for wetlands. The author of the bill isn’t even mentioned (it isn’t necessarily the politician.)

Recap: The question begins with “Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection bill”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.