LR Question 16 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Zoologist: In the Lake Champlain area, as the North…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen – Exception
CONCLUSION: Sunspots probably help cause changes in hare populations.
REASONING: Sunspots are correlated with changes in hare populations.
ANALYSIS: This is an open ended argument. There are a million reasons why sunspots could affect hare populations. You’re trying to prove that correlation = causation in this case, so you just have to eliminate answers that provide a link.
___________
- The stimulus says increases in predator populations drive hares to forests and thus lead to shrinking hare populations. And this answer shows that sunspots affect predator populations.
- CORRECT. This introduces a new factor which can affect animals (weather), and it also says sunspots don’t need to be involved. So this can’t strengthen the idea that sunspots are crucial.
- Hare populations are linked to changes in predators. If predators get more effective due to sunspots, then this will affect hares.
- You might think this repeats the stimulus, but the LSAT never does that. A correlation just means that when one thing goes up, the other thing also goes up. This answer adds new information: the amount of the increase in sunspots and hare populations is also highly correlated. e.g. A 16% increase in sunspots leads not just to an increase in hares, but a ~16% increase.
- The stimulus says hare populations depend on availability of food – there is less food in forests, and hare populations decline. So if sunspots decrease grass, then it makes sense that hare populations would also decline.
Recap: The question begins with “Zoologist: In the Lake Champlain area, as”. It is a Strengthen – Exception question. To practice more Strengthen – Exception questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
I see why B is the correct answer but I was also curious with your wording in explaining answer choice E. You mention quantities of food ( “less grass”) which is also mentioned in the stimulus when it is said there is less food in forested areas. However, E specifically mentions nutritional value, which while its not the biggest discrepancy, is not the same as quantity. There have certainly been numerous answer choices for other LSAT questions that are contingent upon one particular word and for some reason I also felt that could be valid and was hung up on it quite a bit.
You’re right, I should have said “if sunspots affect the nutritional quality” of grass. I don’t think this changes the underlying rational though. Nutritional quality of food is obviously relevant to an animal’s survival.
I think the explanation of B is not quite rigorous. I saw the Kaplan explanation and it showed that the mentioned “species’ population” was not easily considered as hare’ or its predators’, which I think was in better logic. Just personal opinion, feel free to discuss it.
Hmm, I think that’s a valid point. Though I’d argue that “species'” is reasonably interpreted to mean any species generally. But upon my rereading of this explanation I think mostly the problem with B is it introduces a phenomenon and says sunspots don’t need to be present. So this can’t strengthen the relevance of sunspots. I’m updating the explanation to make this clearer.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Just a friendly heads up that the answer choices aren’t formatted in A,B,C,D,E format. Thank you for your amazing work!
Fixed it, thanks! Let me know if you spot any others.