PrepTest 101

[lcid:3501] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Environmental scientist: It is Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Paradox Questions

Stimulus Summary

Government funding for wetlands protection is much higher today than a decade ago, but it needs to be even higher!

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to reconcile the evidence with the Scientist’s conclusion, so this is a Paradox question. And, as with all Paradox questions, we should start by figuring out the weirdness in the stimulus.
Here, the evidence shows that the amount of money going to wetlands protection has increased dramatically over the past decade. From this, someone might think that the amount of money being spent on it is sufficient. However, the Scientist claims the opposite - it’s “inadequate” and “should be augmented.”
How can it be the case that funding has increased dramatically and yet it’s still not enough? That really makes sense only if a decade ago it was really insufficient! If the amount of money in wetlands protection a decade ago was 1% of what was needed to actually protect the wetlands, then a 3x/10x increase would still not be enough.
Let’s find an answer that brings up that possibility.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The governmental agency responsible Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer brings up another factor that could be leading to the wetlands not being in good shape - mismanagement of the agency in charge of fixing it up. If that’s the case, then it’s not the money but rather the inefficiency of the agency that’s the problem.

  2. B
    Over the past ten Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The stimulus notes that even taking inflation into account, current spending on wetlands preservation is at least 3x what it was a decade ago. Unless these salaries increased a ridiculous amount, this doesn’t account for the overall shortfall in funding. And even if they did, there’s no indication that the salaries of the scientists working on it is a significant contributor to the overall cost of preservation - maybe most of the money goes to equipment or other salaries.

  3. C
    Research over the past Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    If anything, this suggests that more preservation could be done with less money, which would make the paradox worse.

  4. D
    More people today, scientists Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    There being more people working on such preservations doesn’t mean that the current funding is insufficient. Maybe the increase in the funding here is enough to cover the salaries of the increased number of people working on this issue!

  5. E
    Unlike today, funding for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer establishes that the baseline was almost zero. 3x almost zero is still pretty close to zero! If that’s the case, then despite the growth in funding, it could still be woefully inadequate, thus explaining the Scientist’s position.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion