LSAT 72, Logical Reasoning I, Q13, LSATHacks

LR Question 13 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Some ornithologists believe that many species of…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Ornithologists say that songbirds are still threatened, even though we have begun reforestation.

REASONING: Fragmentation of forests can also harm songbirds. Open spaces make songbirds more vulnerable to predators.

ANALYSIS: Reforestation is a good thing. But ornithologists point out it’s not sufficient. Reforestation is instead a useful factor that unfortunately doesn’t prove the ornithologists wrong. The right answer will say the same thing, but more abstractly.

___________

1. Not quite. It’s true that various songbirds are threatened, but the fact about reforestation is actually evidence against this conclusion. (Though it’s unfortunately not enough evidence.)
2. Nonsense. The ornithologists didn’t say reforestation isn’t happening. They’re saying it isn’t enough, because forests have too many open spaces and corridors.
3. CORRECT. This is it. Reforestation is useful. But it’s not enough to stop songbird decline. 
4. Nonsense. The stimulus didn’t even talk about predator habitats. Instead, the passage said that open spaces make songbirds more vulnerable to predators. This is because predators can get closer to nests.
5. Ridiculous. The passage never said that predators are at risk. 

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.