Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 13

Incorrect. The reforestation isn't the reason songbirds will continue to face extinction (though even that's a bit of a jump). It's the fragmentation, which isn't necessarily a result of reforestation, but the reforestation here has been fragmented.

Incorrect. The ornithologists accept that reforestation is happening, just in a fragmented manner that isn't addressing the threat to songbirds.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Ornithologists believe deforestation is a problem, but the recent reforestation hasn't stopped the problem, since it's the distribution of forests instead of how many trees there are that matters, and the new forests are distributed poorly.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is interesting in that it completely dives into the viewpoint of the ornithologists, and their view is the one asked about in the question stem. Normally, when a viewpoint is introduced at the beginning of the stimulus, the author will pivot away. Not here!

In this stimulus, a problem is presented—deforestation threatens songbirds. From this, one might expect that reforestation would remove the threat. However, the stimulus notes that the current round of reforestation isn't actually having that effect, since the trees are being replanted in a fragmented manner that drives the actual problem—the birds aren't shielded from predators when there are open spaces in forests.

Since the question stem asks us about the role of the claim that there has recently been reforestation, we should clearly define that role. Here, it's brought up as something that should address the problem identified by the ornithologists, but it hasn't because it doesn't address the underlying issue—open spaces/corridors that give predators access to the songbird nests.

Answer Explanation:
While we wouldn't pick this answer on our first pass, we'd leave it. "[C]ompatible with" just means that it doesn't contradict that claim, and the argument explains how reforestation could still present the threat to songbirds through forest fragmentation.

Key Takeaway:
"Compatible with" on the LSAT just means that it doesn't contradict the situation. By highlighting how two things can happen simultaneously, those things are therefore compatible.

Incorrect. The predators aren't said to have a habitat in the forests, but rather that the open spaces that are being left in the forests give them easy access to songbirds.

Incorrect. There's no claim in the stimulus that the predators are endangered, so this answer doesn't reflect the argument.