LSAT 153 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q1

RC Question 1 Explanation

DISCUSSION: Main point questions are of two kinds:

1. Ones where the right answer sort of summarizes multiple paragraphs [Most questions]
2. Ones where the first paragraph sets the purpose of the whole passage [This question]

The author states their purpose in lines 8-12: they want to inform policy makers about the economic arguments surrounding forests. Lines 12-15 show that the two questions discussed in the rest of the passage are mentioned because they are economic arguments that “merit special scrutiny”.

So the point of the passage is to examine economic policy arguments about forests for policymakers.

___________

1. CORRECT. Lines 8-12 sum the passage up: before making policy, we must judge the arguments about forest economics. Lines 12-15 “Two claims….merit special scrutiny” show that the two claims (in paragraphs 2 and 3) are being discussed because they are claims about what forest economic policy should be.
2. The author actually never talked about the dangers of regulation. This answer is here to distract you: prominent voices in American political commentary warn against the dangers of regulation, so this answer may feel familiar. But it isn’t in the passage.
3. The first part of this is merely a fact stated in lines 41-43. The point of the passage is to discuss policy questions such as this: see lines 8-12. And the second part of this answer is unfounded: the author discussed the size of commercial plantations on line 55, but they never said how fast they’re growing. Size and growth are different concepts. E.g. a puppy is small, but grows rapidly. The LSAT frequently tests the distinction between amount (size) and rate (growth).
4. This answer misrepresents paragraph 3. It doesn’t say moral reasons (noninstrumental reasons) are more important. Instead, on line 35, it said “even if one does not think……biodiversity is a significant [economic/medicinal] resource”.
    
   So it’s basically saying “Not convinced by that first reason? Well, I gotta second reason for you”
5. This answer merely combines a concept from paragraph 3 and 4. That doesn’t cover paragraphs 1 and 2. Further, this answer links the concepts in a way the author didn’t.
    
   In paragraph 4, the author is arguing that deforestation is not so bad. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t causing (some) problems! The author might agree that regulating logging would reduce biodiversity loss. But their reply would be that the economic costs of such a policy outweigh the biodiversity gain.