Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 1 · Question 10

Incorrect. If predators only ate one of each species they preyed upon, this might explain how these species are persisting. But that's a huge if.

Incorrect. We're looking for an answer that explains how a form of camouflage is effective in keeping a species around, so an answer noting that it's not completely effective won't resolve the paradox.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Certain black-and-white coloration doesn't seem to be good camouflage, but it works for some species.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus here notes that an adaptation that counteracts predation doesn't seem like it would be effective camouflage. We need to figure out, then, how that adaptation works despite this shortcoming. The most likely answer will establish that this adaptation works through some other mechanism. That's pretty wide open, so let's head into the answer choices with some flexibility.

Answer Explanation:
This is a tricky answer and has nothing to do with our anticipation, so let's do a deep dive into the language in the stimulus and here. This answer works by exploiting two key phrases in the stimulus. The first is, "that seems unlikely to." That suggests that the statement in the stimulus is a subjective one being made from the viewpoint of the author, a human. If animal species view black and white patterns differently, then what seems like it wouldn't provide camouflage to us might provide camouflage against animals that see differently.
The stimulus also notes that these species have "few or no other" defense mechanisms, establishing that the black/white patterning is an adaptation to counteract predation. So for some species, this pattern is the only thing protecting them, and this answer establishes an explanation for how that works—it's effective camouflage against species that see things differently from humans.

Key Takeaway:
There is no way that a significant number of people would anticipate the correct answer here. No way. The only saving grace is that the most common anticipation isn't used to create a devious trap answer.

That said, we can reinforce something that we should have noted—the subjective language. The stimulus specifically notes that something "seems unlikely" to have a given effect. That's subjective language, and so we can question whether that determination is correct.

This specific use of subjective language—to undercut the certainty of a premise—is rare on the LSAT. The only other example we can think of is a question where a premise notes that a given explanation isn't "plausible"—which means that it could be correct, but the author doesn't believe it.

The wider point is that you should look out for language suggesting that a statement is a subjective belief instead of objective fact—a good habit across questions on the LSAT!

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that the black-and-white areas make a species more visible ("conspicuous"), worsening the paradox.

Incorrect. Without noting whether the species in question are nocturnal or diurnal (and same with the predators), it's unclear that this answer applies to the paradox at hand.