LSAT 63, Logical Reasoning II, Q4, LSATHacks

LR Question 4 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Sam: Mountain lions, a protected species, are preying…

QUESTION TYPE: Point At Issue

ARGUMENTS: Sam thinks that we should let mountain lions eat bighorn sheep. Both species are endangered but we shouldn’t mess with nature.

Meli thinks we should ensure that the bighorn survives even if it means killing mountain lions.

ANALYSIS: They disagree on whether they should “let nature take its course.” Sam thinks we should do nothing and Meli thinks we should limit the mountain lion population. 

Neither of them says for sure whether the sheep will go extinct if nothing is done.

___________

1. CORRECT. Right. Sam thinks there should be no intervention. Meli thinks that we should intervene.
2. Neither of them is certain if all of the sheep will die if they don’t intervene.
3. Sam doesn’t say how easy either option would be. He’s only clear on what we should do: nothing.
4. Meli seems to think that there wouldn’t be an extinction of mountain lions. Sam doesn’t say what he thinks would happen.
5. Sam isn’t certain whether the sheep will die. He says he “hopes” that they will survive. Similarly, Meli doesn’t say that sheep are certain to die if we don’t act. But by acting we can “ensure” the survival of the sheep.

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.