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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- CORRECT. This is it. Reforestation is useful. But it’s not enough to stop songbird decline.
- 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.
- Ridiculous. The passage never said that predators are at risk.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly