PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 23
Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife.(41 more words not shown)
Each of the following statements,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe baboons that(15 more words not shown)
- BThe life expectancy(17 more words not shown)
- CThe cholesterol level(15 more words not shown)
- DThe population of(18 more words not shown)
- EThe rate of(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Garbage dumps don't harm wildlife? That's a big claim. What if animals eat something toxic? What if chemicals in the garbage make them sick?
The evidence is narrower: some baboons eat garbage, mature faster, and have more offspring. Are those necessarily signs that they're healthier? Faster development could come with shorter lives. More births could include more babies with serious health problems. Those are possibilities to check, not facts the passage has established.
And even if these baboons benefit, what about elephants or turtles? Evidence about one group of baboons doesn't settle what happens to all wildlife. I'd especially want to know whether another kind of animal is being harmed.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the exception among facts that cast doubt on the argument. Four answers should give us a reason to question either the baboon evidence or the broader conclusion. We want the remaining answer—the one that doesn't show a problem.
Working the answers
- A
Different species could naturally mature at different rates and produce different numbers of offspring. Then the comparison might reflect which baboons we studied rather than what eating garbage does for them. That undermines the attempt to use these differences as evidence that the garbage is harmless, so A is a weakener we should eliminate.
- B
They die sooner. That's a serious cost that the faster development and extra offspring don't erase. A lower life expectancy among the garbage-eating baboons gives us reason to doubt that the dumps are harmless, even though it doesn't by itself prove what caused the difference.
- C
Dangerously high cholesterol is another possible health cost. The original argument looks only at development and reproduction. C gives us a reason to question that favorable picture by comparing a health risk in garbage-eating baboons with the risk in the others.
- DCorrect
Hyenas are other wildlife, but what happens to them here? Their population increases. That fact doesn't identify harm to the hyenas or undermine the comparison between the two baboon groups. It therefore doesn't cast doubt on the argument in the way the other choices do.
Don't turn the increase into proof that garbage is good for hyenas. We just questioned whether more offspring necessarily mean healthier baboons. We can apply the same caution here and still select D: the answer supplies no stated injury or reason to distrust the baboon evidence.
- E
A higher rate of birth defects would give us a reason to worry about the extra offspring. The timing also connects the rise to the period after the landfills opened. That doesn't prove the landfills caused the defects, but it casts doubt on the claim of harmlessness. More births aren't an unqualified benefit if a larger share of babies have health problems.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.