PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 3
Land developer: By attempting to preserve endangered species(83 more words not shown)
The method the environmentalist uses(9 more words not shown)
- Aclarify a dilemma(8 more words not shown)
- Battack the character(13 more words not shown)
- Cshow that more(9 more words not shown)
- Dshow that the(17 more words not shown)
- Eargue that there(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
At first, I can see a possible argument here. If an endangered animal truly cannot be saved, perhaps spending the money on another species would do more good. Imagine a species with only a few animals left and no workable way to keep it going. Deciding where limited resources will help most could be a real concern.
But that is not the evidence the developer gives. The evidence concerns extinction over millions of years. That doesn't show that saving an endangered species now is hopeless. A species disappearing someday and a species disappearing during our lifetime are very different outcomes.
We all eventually die too. Would that make it sensible to ignore our health because nothing can keep us alive forever? Preventing an early death can matter even if it doesn't provide immortality.
The environmentalist makes that point with cancer research. The developer's reasoning would tell us not to seek a cure because humans will ultimately die anyway. That result makes the problem with the reasoning easier to see: an eventual end doesn't establish that postponing it is worthless.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how the environmentalist challenges the developer. Look for an answer describing this comparison. The environmentalist takes the same reasoning into another situation and shows the unacceptable conclusion it would produce there.
Working the answers
- A
A dilemma would involve competing choices that create some difficulty. Although we initially considered how to spend limited conservation money, the environmentalist doesn't clarify that kind of choice. The response compares extinction with human mortality to challenge the developer's reasoning.
- B
Nothing here attacks the developer's honesty, motives, or personal character. The environmentalist could make the same objection no matter who presented the argument. The target is the leap from “it will eventually happen” to “there is no point trying to delay it.”
- C
This is too general to describe what the response actually does. The environmentalist doesn't request additional findings about extinction or investigate whether paleontologists have enough data. The response lets the claim about eventual extinction stand and tests the reasoning by applying it to cancer research. D captures that specific method.
- DCorrect
Species eventually becoming extinct corresponds to humans eventually dying. Spending money to protect species corresponds to spending money to cure cancer. The developer rejects the first expenditure because it cannot prevent the eventual outcome; using that same reasoning would reject the second expenditure too.
The environmentalist expects us to reject that conclusion about cancer research. The comparison shows why the developer's stated reason is inadequate: an effort can be valuable without preventing the ultimate outcome forever.
- E
The environmentalist is not arguing that some problems are beyond the reach of money. Even if money could never eliminate human mortality, it could still help prevent deaths from cancer. The response challenges the inference that an unavoidable eventual outcome makes present efforts pointless.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.