PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 17
Ecologist: Forest fires, the vast majority of which(90 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- AHuman intervention in(10 more words not shown)
- BProtection of forests(16 more words not shown)
- CForest fires begun(12 more words not shown)
- DHumans tend to(15 more words not shown)
- EIf the health(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The forest may benefit from a fire. My house might not.
I can accept the ecologist's explanation of how fires help forests. They spread seeds, keep insects from becoming too abundant, and stop aggressive weeds from crowding out other species. Those facts give us reasons not to assume every forest fire is simply bad for the forest.
But the conclusion goes further: people should let forest fires burn themselves out. What if a fire threatens someone's home or a shopping center? Protecting those buildings might be a reason to control it even if leaving it alone would benefit the forest. Showing that a policy helps the ecosystem doesn't yet show that it is the policy we should adopt.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to make the conclusion follow. I'd look for a rule that closes off those other reasons to intervene. If protecting the forest and its ecosystem is the only legitimate reason to control fires, then the ecologist's evidence about what helps the forest can settle the recommendation. The missing step concerns what we're allowed to consider, not another detail about how seeds spread.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because diversity is one of the benefits the ecologist discusses. But a general tendency for human intervention to reduce diversity doesn't establish that every fire-control effort has that effect. More importantly, even an ecological cost could be outweighed by another legitimate concern, such as protecting a home. A adds a possible downside of intervention without ruling out the other reasons for it.
- BCorrect
This rules out the competing considerations we raised. If protecting forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason to prevent or control fires, we can't justify doing so merely to protect a building. The ecologist has presented fires as something forests are adapted to and benefit from; B makes forest protection the controlling consideration for the recommendation.
The word only is doing useful work. We need a strong enough rule to move from good for the forest to what people should do about the fire. A broad claim isn't automatically wrong when the task is to supply enough support for a broad conclusion.
- C
This recommends controlling some forest fires, which goes against leaving forest fires alone. The ecologist's benefits concern what fires do in the ecosystem, not whether lightning or a careless camper started a particular fire. C doesn't establish the proposed hands-off policy.
- D
How people tend to view ecosystems doesn't establish what reasons should guide fire policy. People might focus on human needs, but D doesn't tell us whether that focus is justified or whether the ecologist's recommendation should prevail. It leaves our concern about other interests unresolved.
- E
This concerns an ecosystem being threatened by insects or other predators. The recommendation we're trying to establish concerns whether to prevent or control fires. A rule against blocking one kind of threat doesn't tell us how to handle a fire, and the passage actually describes fires as helping control excess insects.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 115, Section 2, Question 21Sufficient Assumption
- PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 14Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.