RC Question 3 Explanation, by LSATHacks
DISCUSSION: The first two paragraphs describe how modern forest management has made forests vulnerable to devastating crown fires.
The third paragraphs describes a two step solution:
- In the short term, remove excess fuel by brush clearing.
- In the long term, allowed controlled fires to keep fuel at low levels.
To continue the paragraph, the answer should be related to this two part solution or it’s likely results.
All the wrong answers introduce new topics. The third paragraph is unlikely to introduce a new topic at the very end of the passage.
___________
- The passage never talked about damage to homes. The third paragraph is unlikely to introduce a new topic right at the end.
- The passage never said that any foresters resist these proposals. The third paragraph is unlikely to introduce a new topic right at the end.
- CORRECT. This is a valid continuation. Paragraphs 1 and 2 described the dangers of our present situation. Paragraph 3 described a solution. This answer cautions that the danger described in paragraphs 1 and 2 will still be with us for at least several years, even if we implement the solution.
- The passage never mentioned economic impacts and it did not mention timber companies. The third paragraph is unlikely to introduce new topics right at the end.
- The passage never talked about financial resources or whether this proposal could be implemented in practice. The third paragraph is unlikely to introduce a new topic right at the end.
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.
I chose C but changed to B in BR. I cited line 4 since it said that foresters and ecologists were increasingly aware and not in full consensus that there was a problem. It made logical sense to infer until they are in consensus that there will be resistance in enacting the proposals.
Increasingly aware = more aware that there is a problem with current policies = more likely to support change. So the very lines you site are in opposition to B. Increasingly aware in no way implies a lack of consensus.
For example, I could say you are increasingly determined to go to law school. That doesn’t mean you have any internal conflict, you could actually be 100% determined. The LSAT is quite literal, and an increase doesn’t imply an increase to less than 100%.
But the real problem with B is that it doesn’t fit the flow of ideas in the final paragraph. It’s merely something you might argue could be true. C actually fits the flow of ideas.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.