LSAT 134 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: “Hot spot” is a term that ecologists use to describe…

QUESTION TYPE: Complete The Argument

CONCLUSION: We should preserve hot spots.

REASONING: Hot spots have many unique species, and these unique species are the most likely to become extinct. Environmentalists can only fight a certain number of battles.

ANALYSIS: This argument makes sense. Environmentalists should use their limited resources to preserve hot spots, as that gives them the best chance of keeping endemic species alive.

Working to keep hot spots is the only logical way to end the argument. Otherwise, why mention hot spots? The whole argument is devoted to showing how important they are.

___________

1. Which species and which habitats? The argument is talking about a specific type of habitat: “hot spots”.
2. CORRECT. Hot spots have species that can’t be found anywhere else, so it makes sense to protect them first.
3. Why? Some endemic species might be more worthy of preservation than others. If there was an endemic species of plant that cured cancer, wouldn’t you rather preserve that than an endemic species that gives people itchy rashes?
4. The conclusion is that we should “give up”? That’s encouraging…but seriously, the argument isn’t saying everything is hopeless. It’s just saying we need to pick our battles. Hot spots seem like a logical place to direct our efforts.
5. How would changing the meaning of a word help preserve species? This is just useless semantics.