Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 321 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 321
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. To protect wildlife we must regulate such development in Figoria: future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats.
Thus, development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.
Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument advanced by the Figorian Wildlife Commission depends?

A. More species have been endangered by the development of wetlands than have been endangered by any other type of development.
B. The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will survive in specially constructed replacement wetlands.
C. In nations that are primarily agricultural, wetland development does not need to be regulated.
D. Figorian regulation of development has in the past protected and preserved wildlife.
E. The species that inhabit Figorian wetlands are among the most severely threatened of the designated endangered species.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B 🗳️
Its the Wildlife vs. the Development Commission in this debate, and first well focus on wildlife as the stem mandates, looking for a missing piece of the puzzle.
The Wildlife folks maintain that wetland development has endangered many species, and to protect wildlife future wetlands must be offset by the development of replacement habitats. That way, reasons the Commission, there will be no loss of wetlands and no threat to species. But what if the construction of the replacement habitats, or something else about them, does endanger the species tat would inhabit them? That would sink the argument, right? So the Wildlife
Commission, in making this argument, must be assuming that there placement habitats will be conducive to the survival of species that would otherwise be in natural wetlands. B. speaks to this issue, and the Denial Test is easily applied: If the species cant survive in the new special replacement wetlands, then whats the point?

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:42 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!