PrepTest 104

[lcid:3515] Prep Test 104 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Monarch butterflies spend the 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

Argument Evaluation Questions

Stimulus Summary

Problem - Monarch butterfly trees are being cut down by woodcutters
Solution - Give tours of those forests
Problem with solution - The tourists trample the shrubs that monarchs falling from trees need
Conclusion - The tour groups are endangering the monarchs

Answer Anticipation

In Argument Evaluation questions, we’re still analyzing the logic of the argument and looking for assumptions. However, the correct answer will bring up a piece of information helpful in determining whether the assumption in the argument is good or bad.
Here, the conclusion of the argument is that the tours being given by the environmental groups are endangering the monarchs. Note that it isn’t comparative - it doesn’t say that they’re more or less damaging that the woodcutters! As such, we don’t care about that danger - we’re analyzing whether or not the tours themselves are particularly dangerous.
Why does the argument believe them to be endangering the monarchs? Because the tourists are trampling the small shrubs that monarchs need to survive when they fall off of trees. However, that’s assuming that a lot of the monarchs fall out of trees during hibernation! If only a couple fall out of trees every winter, then those shrubs aren’t all that important to the survival of the species.
Let’s find an answer choice that brings up something about the frequency with which the butterflies fall.

Answer choices

  1. A
    the amount of forest Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer seems to be more about the woodcutters, when talking about available forestland not currently in use. If we know there’s a lot of it, then cutting down some trees currently in use doesn’t seem like such a big deal since the monarch can just head to other trees. However, the conclusion is about the tours, not the woodcutters, so this answer is out of scope.

  2. B
    the amount of wood Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The conclusion is about the tours, not the woodcutters, so this information is out of scope.

  3. C
    the amount of plant Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The plant life that isn’t related to monarch survival also isn’t related to the conclusion, so this answer is out of scope.

  4. D
    the proportion of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Another answer about woodcutting! Another quick elimination since the conclusion is about the tours.

  5. E
    the proportion of hibernating Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer addresses the gap in the reasoning. The argument concludes that the tours pose a threat to monarchs because shrubs that are necessary for monarchs who fall out of trees are trampled. Knowing if a lot or only a few monarchs actually fall out of trees would help in evaluating how much of a threat trampling these shrubs actually is to the monarch butterfly population, making this the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Solutions 1 reply

    Started by jccc

View all discussions Start a discussion