PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 2
Astronomer: Mount Shalko is the perfect site for(92 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AMore than a(15 more words not shown)
- BA coalition of(18 more words not shown)
- CHaving a complex(35 more words not shown)
- DThe building of(29 more words not shown)
- EA survey conducted(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Perfect” is a lot to establish. The summit has room for the observatory, and the lack of nearby large cities helps with smog and artificial light. Those are real advantages. I would still wonder about other obstacles, such as cloud cover, before calling the site perfect.
Then the astronomer makes a stronger claim about wildlife: building the observatory would actually save it. The idea is that keeping out the mountain's many recreational visitors would remove a threat to the local species.
But what damage would the observatory itself cause? Maybe visitors coming to see it would create new pressure. Maybe its waste or other activities would harm the habitat. Imagine replacing mountain bikers with a facility that damages the animals' surroundings just as much. Removing the old source of harm wouldn't make the new arrangement a rescue.
What we’re looking for
For the weakening question, I'd look for evidence that the observatory could damage the ecosystem. We don't have to deny that recreational use is harmful. We need to question whether replacing that use with the observatory actually improves the situation.
Working the answers
- A
The species being found nowhere else makes protecting this site especially important. But the astronomer already presents the observatory as a way to protect it. A doesn't tell us whether that proposal would succeed or fail. The value of the wildlife does not establish what the project would do to it.
- B
Many different groups oppose the project, but we don't know their reasons. Taxpayer groups might object to the expense; hunters might object to losing access. The existence of opposition doesn't supply evidence that the observatory would harm the ecosystem or otherwise defeat the astronomer's stated advantages.
- CCorrect
The complex, fences, and access road could disrupt the environment just as much as current recreational use. That directly challenges the claim that replacing recreation with the observatory would save the wildlife. We could be trading one source of ecological harm for another.
The answer adds details about the project's footprint. That is allowed: the question asks us to consider each answer if true. We don't need the passage to have already established those details. Given them, the astronomer's claim of an ecological benefit becomes much less convincing.
- D
This says the observatory would not cause the nearby towns to become a large city with smog, lights, and additional visitors. The word “not” matters. D removes a possible concern about the project's consequences; it does not give us a new reason to doubt the site.
- E
Other mountains might offer better recreational opportunities, but we don't know that visitors will leave Mount Shalko for them. More importantly, this says nothing about the harm caused by constructing and operating the observatory. Comparing recreational potential doesn't establish that the proposed replacement would damage the mountain.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.