LSAT 32, Logical Reasoning II, Q7, LSATHacks

LR Question 7 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

ARGUMENT: The wetlands commission argues that all new wetland development must be offset by new replacement wetlands. That way there will be no net reduction of wetlands and there won’t be any threat to the species that inhabit them.

ANALYSIS: This argument assumes that fake wetlands will work just as well as real wetlands. 

___________

1. The argument is still good even if other types of development have caused more harm. That shouldn’t stop us from trying to prevent harm to wetlands.
2. CORRECT. If the species won’t survive in replacement wetlands then there will be a threat to species that inhabit wetlands. 
3. The negation is that wetlands development would have to be regulated in agricultural countries too. That doesn’t hurt the argument.
4. This would be helpful, but it’s not absolutely necessary. New regulation might succeed where old regulation failed. 
5. It isn’t necessary that the threatened species are the most threatened. It’s only necessary that we can reduce the threat to those species. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.