RC Question 5 Explanation, by LSATHacks
DISCUSSION: Ancient ponderosa forests are described in the first paragraph. Here’s what we know about them:
- They had low intensity fires.
- They were open forests.
- They had low levels of fuel.
- Mature trees survived fires.
- Fires cleared the forests of young trees.
These facts are all in lines 11-14; I’ve just summarized them. The right answer will likely be one of these facts.
Lines 15-20 also say that ponderosa forests had small fires at intervals between 5-20 years.
___________
- The passage never mentions modern ponderosas or genetics. You’re not looking for something that might be true in real life, you’re looking for something the passage actually said.
- CORRECT. This is fairly well supported. Line 14 says the fires cleared the forests of young trees. Fewer trees = lower population density.
Modern ponderosa forests don’t have fires, as we have stopped wildfires over the past 50 years (line 30). Therefore, since modern forests have more young trees, the population density is likely higher. - The passage never mentions weather patterns in ponderosa forests or if weather has changed over time.
- We know that fires reduce the number of trees. We don’t know if fires reduce the diversity of trees. Unless a fire makes a tree species disappear from the forest entirely, the forest diversity stays the same.
- The passage only said large fires kill wildlife (line 24). The passage never mentions whether low intensity fires affect or control wildlife.
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.
Oooooh. That’s what’s going on. Wildlife, traditionally, means animals. A few people use it to refer to plants, but it’s not really considered correct. Try this google image search for wildlife:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=wildlife&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=XU4kVI6vKY-wogSGg4KIAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=960&bih=446&dpr=1.5
Trees are not wildlife, at least as far as this passage is concerned.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wildlife
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wildlife
There’s issues with your use of the word control too. If you read all the dictionary definitions, you’ll see there’s one of two elements at word:
1. Ability to manage something
2. Reducing a (negative) thing.
Pure destructive energy is not control, unless it’s related to something we want to eradicate. Feel free to ask English professors at your university if you’re not convinced.
I’m going to end discussion here, because it all comes down to the meaning of words. And I can’t convince you about the definition of words beyond pointing to dictionaries. Beyond that, fully grasping when to use one word and not another depends on a lifetime of reading and seeing how other writers use words.
Regarding answer E, the passage actually mentions low intensity fires clearing out young trees like you mentioned in line 14. Shouldn’t controlling trees count as controlling wildlife population?
No, those are different things. You can’t assume that controlling one things leads to control of all things. We know *large* fires kill wildlife. But killing isn’t controlling, and the passage never says what effect small fires have on wildlife.
The LSAT is very precise. You generally can’t make assumptions.
If you read lines 9 to 14, it specifically refers to low intensity fires, not large ones.
Seems to me that keeping mature trees alive while removing brush and younger trees is in essence wildlife population control. Are you inferring that an action cannot be so without doing something similar to ALL species in its ecosystem?
Also confused why killing isn’t population control. Wouldn’t killing weeds on my lawn count as controlling its population?
Lines 9-14 don’t mention wildlife though. You can’t just assume low intensity fires control wildlife because they control trees.
Line 24 mentions wildlife. It says that large fires may kill wildlife that were left alone by low intensity fires. This appears to contradict your idea.
Killing weeds counts as controlling population, sure. Because you want to kills weeds! The goal is none. But you wouldn’t say killing puppies with poison is puppy population control….especially if there weren’t too many puppies.
Population control means having the right level of population. For weeds, most people say “none” is the right level. But we want some wildlife. So indiscriminately killing them with fire is not the same thing as controlling their population.
You’re making a ton of assumptions about possibilities. First, your assumptions aren’t supported by anything in the passage. Second, your assumptions are just things that “could be true”. It’s *possible* fire would control, say, deer population in the way we want. It’s also possible it would kill too many deer.
You can’t take a possibility to mean a certainty.
The lines 9-14 say low intensity fires help clear brush and young trees, but leaves mature trees alive. Last I checked those were considered wildlife. So the low intensity fires are influencing the trees population, trees being wildlife. I’m normally keen on the part vs whole fallacy, but I’m not sure if that applies here.
I see it as something like this:
My new law changes the maximum speed on sedans. Therefore, my new law influences automotive vehicles.
If you influence more than one automotive vehicle with at law( it can be 2 sedans) that statement should be okay.
Rather than:
My new law changes the maximum speed on sedans. Therefore, my new law influences all automotive vehicles.
This one has a problem, because we need to show that every single automotive vehicle was in fact influenced, and not just limited to sedans.
And on controlling:
To control something is to exert influence on something. I don’t think you need intent for control. isnt it okay to say greenhouse gases and precipitation help control the earths surface temperature? There is no “goal”there. And those factors have been controlling temperature for longer than human existence… It has throughout history aided in altering temperatures in directions that would have made it too hot AND too cold for our miserable existence. Too much or too little in a certain direction doesn’t have to be involved when gagging influence.
On line 24:
The passage does mention that large fires can kill off wildlife that survive small fires in line 24, but I think that helps my case. In line 8, it mentions how periodic fires help minimize the damage when fires do occur, then gives lines 9-14 as an example. So it seems to be implying that low intensity fires could help prevent those big fires in the first place by clearing out some trees, but overall helps save other Wildlife from dying in a huge fire.
….So low intensity fires clear brush and kill young trees, probably lowering the tree density ( lol credited answer), but saves other wildlife by limiting large fires. If this isn’t helping to control wildlife population, then it seems I’ve lost my mind!
Dear Creator of Answers: Definition of wildlife:
wild animals collectively; the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region.
synonyms: (wild) animals, fauna, flora and fauna
“the wildlife of Southeast Asia”
So, wildlife encompasses trees and tree population is controlled. Maybe I should write to the test-makers. To infer answer choice B is to also infer answer choice E. If you are decreasing the “density” of trees, you are also controlling their population, no not all wildlife population, but trees are wildlife.
Note the “sometimes”. Calling flora wildlife is an exception, as in the wildlife trade which encompassed banned trade in rare animals and plants.
But the ordinary usage of wildlife does not include trees, a google search is sufficient to establish this. The lsat usage words according to their normal usage and a reasonable person would not interpret E to be referring to trees when it says wildlife.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.