PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 8
The gray squirrel, introduced into local woodlands ten(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AOne of the(21 more words not shown)
- BThe owls whose(14 more words not shown)
- CNo indigenous population(16 more words not shown)
- DThe owls that(20 more words not shown)
- EThe officials' plan(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The owls might never touch the bait and still encounter the poison.
The squirrels are destroying nesting trees, so I understand the impulse to remove them. I might also wonder whether the owls can find other nesting sites or whether some squirrels provide food. But the passage gives us the habitat threat, and the officials now propose a particular remedy: poison.
What if an owl eats a rodent that has eaten the poison? Keeping the owl out of the container doesn't keep the rodent out of the owl. The officials address direct access while leaving that indirect route open.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the officials' argument. My prediction is that these owls eat the animals that can reach the poison. That would give us a reason to question the promised lack of threat to the owl population, even if the containers work exactly as described.
Working the answers
- A
This starts down the right path: another species is likely to eat the poison. But then it says the owls do not eat that species. The red squirrel therefore doesn't provide the indirect route we're looking for. This doesn't establish that the whole plan is safe; it just fails to identify a way these owls could be harmed.
- BCorrect
The threatened owls feed primarily on rodents, and rodents can reach the poison. That links the bait to the owls' food supply. An owl could be exposed by eating a poisoned animal despite never entering a bait container.
B needn't prove that every owl will be poisoned. The officials claim the plan poses no threat to the population. This plausible route of exposure challenges the reason they give for that assurance.
- C
Whether other bird species are threatened by the squirrels doesn't answer whether poisoning rodents threatens these owls. The argument is about the safety of the proposed remedy for the endangered owl population, not the number of other birds with the original habitat problem.
- D
Damaging a tree's trunk can still destroy a nesting site at its top. There is no conflict between the two locations and the stated threat. More importantly, D doesn't tell us whether the poison would hurt the owls. It discusses the existing tree damage rather than the safety of the response.
- E
This may reduce direct exposure by animals that don't eat the baited food. It does not rule out indirect exposure when those animals eat rodents. E therefore doesn't establish the officials' safety claim, but it also doesn't provide the owl-to-rodent connection that weakens that claim. B does.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.