PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 11
Environmentalist: The complex ecosystem of the North American(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIf earlier North(11 more words not shown)
- BProtecting the habitat(22 more words not shown)
- CThe biodiversity of(17 more words not shown)
- DPreservation of the(9 more words not shown)
- EThe devastation of(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could we actually obtain that much meat from a restored prairie? The numbers give the proposal an appealing starting point. The old ecosystem supported tens of millions of bison, and the passage says a bison yields as much meat as a cow. That makes it worth asking whether restoring the ecosystem could preserve much of the meat supply.
But I still have practical questions. How would people gather and process the bison? Would today's roads and cities interfere with their movement? Matching the rough number of animals doesn't answer every question about producing the meat. Those are concerns to investigate, not proof that the proposal couldn't work.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the conclusion, so identify the claim those concerns would challenge. The environmentalist says we could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production. The past bison population, comparable meat yield and lack of agricultural inputs support that claim. We can recognize it even if we'd want more evidence before accepting it.
Working the answers
- A
The proposal is to return land to an uncultivated state, not to bring back an earlier method of cultivation. An older farming technique would still be a farming technique. A changes the proposed action, so its claim about a small production loss isn't a restatement of the conclusion.
- B
Avoiding pesticides, machinery and subsidies sounds economically attractive, but the argument doesn't compare the full cost of obtaining meat in the two systems. Our questions about gathering and processing animals illustrate why those costs would need examination. The stated conclusion concerns biodiversity and the amount of meat, not a claim that wild animals are more cost effective.
- C
This supplies a condition for deciding whether restoration should occur: no intolerable economic consequences. The environmentalist doesn't state that rule. The argument claims restoration could happen without a major reduction in meat production; it doesn't tell us how to weigh every possible economic consequence.
- D
Preserving the remaining bison isn't the proposal being supported. The environmentalist considers returning as much land as possible to its uncultivated state and restoring biodiversity while maintaining meat production. D substitutes a narrower conservation policy and omits the relationship with the meat supply.
- ECorrect
This restates both parts of the conclusion. Restoring the prairie would reverse much of the damage to the ecosystem, and it could do so without a major decrease in meat production. The earlier claims about bison numbers and meat yields are reasons to believe that combination is possible. E gives the claim they support, not just one of its reasons.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.