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?
Answer(s): B
It's the Wildlife vs. the Development Commission in this debate, and first we'll 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 that would inhabit them? That would sink the argument, right? So the Wildlife Commission, in making this argument, must be assuming that their 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 can't survive in the new special replacement wetlands, then what's the point?
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 useWhich one of the following principles, if accepted, would most strongly support the Figorian Development Commission's position against the Figorian Wildlife Commission's position?
Answer(s): C
Now for the Development response: Figoria has conserved and has the right to develop if they wish, considering that wetland development might not, according to them, affect wildlife. We're looking for a principle that supports this position against the Wildlife account of things, and the final sentence itself sounds like a principle, stating that Figoria has as much right as other countries to decide how to use its resources.
High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol levels much more than dietary cholesterol does.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer(s): D
Another LSAT mainstay topic -- blood cholesterol -- and this time in the context of a Strengthen the Argument question. First we get the familiar notion that high cholesterol is bad for the heart. Shellfish has cholesterol, but the author concludes that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart because it's low in saturated fat, which has an effect on cholesterol levels. But what effect does it have? The author assumes some sort of good effect, no doubt. To bolster this argument, we need to solidify the connection between consuming foods low in saturated fat and better cholesterol levels.
Every moral theory developed in the Western tradition purports to tell us what a good life is. However, most people would judge someone who perfectly embodied the ideals of any one of these theories not to be living a good life -- the kind of life they would want for themselves and their children.The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Inference is the name of the game here, so let's dive right in, looking to interpret and combine statements. If most people would find someone living out the ideals of any moral theory in the Western tradition as lacking "a good life," then it stands to reason that most people's notion of a good life is not consistent with the ones embodied in the Western moral theories. That's C.
Biologist: Humans have five fingers because we descended from a fish with five phalanges in its fins. Despite our prejudices to the contrary, our configuration of fingers is no more or less useful than several other possible configurations, e.g., six per hand. So, if humans had descended from a fish with six phalanges in its fins and had six fingers on each hand, then we would be just as content with that configuration.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the biologist's argument?
Another Strengthen the Argument question, so let's try to spot an element that needs a bit of extra support. It's a strange argument: The biologist asserts that having five fingers is merely a developmental coincidence, and that we'd have six fingers on each hand if our marine ancestor had six phalanges. Moreover, we'd be just as happy with six fingers as we are with five. This last part is based on the assertion that there's no difference in usefulness between having six fingers and having five. That's a connection that's a bit tenuous, so chances are that our strengthener will relate to this in some way.We may ask ourselves: "What if there are other differences that might affect our finger satisfaction?" After all, usefulness is only one possible criteria that might determine how happy we are with our finger configuration (perhaps there areaesthetic concerns as well). The author assumes this is not the case; that is, that no other considerations affect our perceptions in this matter, and that equal usefulness is enough to ensure equal contentedness.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the LSAT Test content, but please register or login to continue.