PrepTest 137

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Causal relationship: Cause - Habitat being a weapons testing range; Effect - Camel population decreased
Weird phenomenon - The testing range shut down, and the camel population's decline accelerated

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Paradox questions, clearly defining the paradox is key to anticipating/finding an answer. And while not common as comparisons, causality features heavily in this paradox.

The stimulus establishes a causal relationship—the camel was endangered "because" the habitat was being used as a testing range. And so when the cause is removed—the testing range shuts down—you would expect that the effect also goes down, at least some. However, in this case, the effect accelerated—the camel population decreased at an even faster rate. That's what we need to explain.

What could account for it? The answer will likely establish one of two things. Either the removal of the testing range resulted in another change that can account for the camel population dropping faster, or the damage was done to the population and there's some type of negative feedback loop that is no longer related to the testing range. The former is, historically, more likely on the LSAT, so let's look for a change that the removal of the testing range will have that could negatively affect the camel population.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a separate change brought about by the closure of the testing range—an increase in poaching—that would account for the faster decline in the camel population. After all, the weapons testing would kill camels but it wasn't designed to do so; the poachers are intentionally going after the camels, accounting for the increase in the depopulation.

Key Takeaway:
Make sure to clearly define the paradox in the stimulus as well as why it's unexpected. Knowing why something is weird will help you find the answer that explains it.

Incorrect. If the weapons testing was more recently doing less damage to the population, there's no indication as to why removing it caused the population to drop even more—the range was still hurting the camel population, so removing it should have seen them rebound to some extent.

Incorrect. Very tempting answer! However, while this answer does establish a persistent danger to the camel population, it can't account for an increase in the depopulation. After all, the unexploded bombs would have existed while the range was active, plus the live weapons would have been present, and the total number of unexploded bombs would only go down over time. All of these reasons suggest that while the camel population would still suffer from the testing range after it closed, that negative impact should be slowing down.

Incorrect. If this answer stated that the outbreaks happened after the range closed, it could be correct. However, in discussing outbreaks during the range's operation, it can't explain depopulation after closing.

Incorrect. This doesn't address anything about what happened after the testing range closed.