LSAT 152 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Shelton: The recent sharp decline in the number of moose…

QUESTION TYPE: Paradox

PARADOX: Shelton says that the moose population in region A declined because there were more white tailed deer. These deer carry a deadly parasite that can transfer to nearby moose.

Russo says that in nearby region B, there were many more white tailed deer, but the moose population didn’t decline.

ANALYSIS: I added region A and B for clarity. The confusing element here is that in region B we seem to have the cause (deer) but not the effect (dead moose). To resolve the paradox, we can find any of the following:

1. Some factor that supported the moose population in region B, despite the parasite, or
2. Some reason the parasite didn’t affect the moose in region B

Remember, we’re trying to make sense of both statements. That means: the parasite is bad for moose, it is causing problems where moose are present, but it isn’t causing enough problems to cause a decline in region B.

___________

1. This doesn’t matter. We only care about the fact that moose did die. We’re concerned with the change, not with the size of populations after the change.
    
   India and China both have much larger populations than the US. If either country lost 400 million people, they’d still be bigger than the US. But a sane response if 400 million people died in either country would be “my god, that’s unfathomably tragic”. You wouldn’t say “This is irrelevant, they both still have larger populations than the US”. It’s just a….nonsensical reply.
2. So? We only care about the change in population. Moose populations will reach an equilibrium based on the land available. It’s perfectly possible that region A has many more moose, but that the moose population is dropping. This answer doesn’t say there’s any change in the habitat, so it can’t explain the drop.
3. This answer seems persuasive: it introduces an alternate cause. But….it’s rather vague. We don’t know how big the wolf pack is in each area. Maybe region A has 100 wolves and region B has 10,000 wolves. In such a case, the wolves in region A can eat all the moose and deer they want, but the wolves in region B need to eat other things as there are too many wolves.
    
   Further, we don’t know how much moose the wolves eat! This answer says the wolves eat “moose and deer”. Maybe the wolves eat 99% deer and only occasionally eat moose. We don’t care when deer get eaten. If wolves mostly eat deer, then this answer has zero impact.
    
   An answer can only be right if it’s specific enough that it definitely affects a situation. This answer is consistent with region A having a tiny wolf pack that almost exclusively eats deer and kills the occasional moose. Not very persuasive is it?
    
   You can’t pick an answer for its potential. You have to pick it for what it guarantees.
4. CORRECT. Shelton’s evidence was that the parasite can attach to nearby moose. If the moose and deer ranges don’t overlap in region B, then the parasites can’t attach. Whereas in region A there is overlap, so the parasites can spread from deer to moose and kill the moose.
    
   e.g. Suppose region A is Alaska, region B is the continental US. According to this answer, this would mean moose and deer mingle all over Alaska and the parasite can spread. But in the continental US, moose are only in Maine, and deer are only in Texas. In such a scenario you wouldn’t expect parasites to spread from Texan deer to moose in Maine.
5. So what? Both regions had moose and deer, so both regions were presumably suitable for both species. This doesn’t present a difference between the regions.

Recap: The question begins with “Shelton: The recent sharp decline in the number of moose”. It is a Paradox question. Learn how to master LSAT Paradox questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.