PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 16
Publicity campaigns for endangered species are unlikely to(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe most important(9 more words not shown)
- BMicroorganisms cannot experience(5 more words not shown)
- CPublicity campaigns for(13 more words not shown)
- DPeople ignore environmental(13 more words not shown)
- EAn organism can(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wouldn't a campaign about endangered pandas help the pandas? People might donate, support habitat protection, or change how they treat the animals. That makes me hesitate when the author predicts that these campaigns won't have much impact.
But we need to read that prediction carefully. The conclusion concerns the most important environmental problems. It doesn't say every campaign fails to help every species. So a successful panda campaign wouldn't, by itself, contradict the conclusion.
The evidence draws a distinction between kinds of organisms. Large mammals are relatively easy to sympathize with; soil microorganisms are harder. I can accept that difference without yet accepting the prediction about the most important problems. Why should the campaigns' difficulty in reaching one group tell us how much they can accomplish on that larger goal?
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument needs. Let's look for a connection that makes this contrast between species relevant to the particular conclusion. A claim that campaigns sometimes succeed or sometimes fail won't settle it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This connects the most important problems with the organisms that are harder to get people to care about. If those problems instead involved only large mammals, the author's own evidence would give us reason to think campaigns could readily evoke sympathy for the relevant species. The difficulty of getting people to sympathize with soil microorganisms wouldn't address those problems.
A rules out that disconnect. Success with pandas doesn't settle the most important problems if those problems involve other endangered species. We don't have to show that campaigns for those species are impossible; the argument's conclusion is only that the campaigns are unlikely to have much impact.
- B
An organism's actual feelings and our ability to sympathize with it are different things. Microorganisms could experience pain while people still found it difficult to care about them. The argument relies on the public's response, not on proving that the organisms have no feelings.
- C
The most effective approach needn't be the only approach that has much impact. A campaign might work best when it evokes sympathy but still accomplish a lot in other ways. This ranking also doesn't connect the difficult-to-promote species with the most important environmental problems, which is the gap A addresses.
- D
This says people ignore environmental problems unless they sympathize with the affected creatures. That's much stronger than the argument needs. Someone could care about a problem because it affects farming or their livelihood, even without sympathy for an organism. Allowing such people doesn't, by itself, defeat the limited prediction about these publicity campaigns.
- E
The author gives soil microorganisms as an example of organisms on which ecosystems and agriculture depend. That doesn't require a rule excluding every other basis for environmental significance. An organism could matter for another reason without changing the argument about which campaigns are likely to affect the most important problems.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.