LR Question 6 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The waters surrounding Shooter’s Island have long been…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The still waters around Shooter’s Island serve as a nursery for the juveniles.
REASONING: The Shooter Island waters are very still. There are far more juveniles around Shooter’s Island than there are around the other islands, even though the overall population is similar at each island.
ANALYSIS: This feels like a pretty good argument already. But we can strengthen it by providing more evidence – possibly to show that the juveniles would not be at Shooter’s Island if it weren’t a nursery, or evidence for why there would be a nursery there.
___________
- This doesn’t support the conclusion. It only tells us that Shooter’s Island waters have been still for a while, but doesn’t link that to the nursery conclusion.
- This tells us that it’s the same year-round, but doesn’t advance the nursery conclusion.
- CORRECT. This answer tells us that still waters are preferred. This supports the idea that Shooter’s Island waters serve as a nursery.
- This is something we already basically knew! The stimulus tells us that Shooter’s Island waters are “exceptionally still”.
- This doesn’t support the conclusion! In fact, it raises the question of why there aren’t more waterbirds at Shooter’s Island than at the other islands. If Shooter’s Island is a nursery, this answer tells us that there should be more waterbirds there.
Recap: The question begins with “The waters surrounding Shooter’s Island have long been”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
Hi, thank you first for proposing the explanation.
I chose B cause it can prove that the fact that juvenile waterbirds are much more abundant around Shooter’s island than around those other islands is not ocassional. I think this stablility can strength the argument.
Please help! Thanks a lot.
Hi! I’m glad you’re enjoying the explanations.
I see where you’re coming from with B, as it could help establish that the difference in juvenile abundance isn’t just a seasonal fluke. The problem is, the argument isn’t relying on whether the difference is temporary or stable. It’s about why that difference even exists.
The ornithologist’s conclusion is that the still waters around Shooter’s Island cause it to be a nursery for juveniles. B tells us the pattern is stable, but it doesn’t actually link that pattern to still waters. B still allows the cause of the abundance to be due to other factors (e.g. food availability or fewer predators).
C is stronger because it directly connects the still waters to juvenile birds’ use of the area. If waterbirds use still waters as nurseries whenever possible, then Shooter’s Island having still waters makes it highly likely that this is why the juveniles are more abundant there. That’s the causal link the conclusion depends on.
So, B isn’t necessarily a bad answer, but it doesn’t get to the core reasoning that the argument uses, so C provides more support. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions.