PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 7
Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in(109 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AMore species have(17 more words not shown)
- BThe species indigenous(11 more words not shown)
- CIn nations that(11 more words not shown)
- DFigorian regulation of(9 more words not shown)
- EThe species that(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Can we replace a wetland just by building another one somewhere else?
Imagine clearing an established swamp for homes or shops. The frogs, snakes, and other animals lose the habitat they've been using. Creating the same amount of wetland nearby doesn't tell us whether those animals can move there or survive there. The new habitat might lack the plants or other conditions the old one provided.
The Wildlife Commission promises both no net loss of wetlands and no threat to the species that inhabit them. The first claim concerns how much wetland remains. The second concerns whether the replacement actually works for the wildlife. Keeping the amount constant doesn't, by itself, connect those two claims.
What we’re looking for
This question asks for an assumption required by the Wildlife Commission's argument. Focus on that commission, even though we also heard from the Development Commission. My prediction is that the replacement habitats must be suitable for the species we're trying to protect. If those species can't live in the replacements, the promise of no threat falls apart.
Working the answers
- A
Wetland development doesn't have to be the greatest source of danger to wildlife for the commission to propose regulating it. Forest development could endanger even more species, and wetland replacement could still be part of a protection plan. The comparison with every other type of development is unnecessary.
- BCorrect
The species native to the existing wetlands must be able to survive in the constructed replacements. Otherwise, exchanging one habitat for another could preserve the amount of wetland while losing the wildlife.
The answer doesn't require every feature of the new wetlands to be identical to the old ones. It names the requirement relevant to the commission's goal: the species must survive there. If they wouldn't, the proposed replacement policy wouldn't justify the claim that development poses no threat.
- C
The argument concerns Figoria's proposed development rule. It doesn't depend on a claim that primarily agricultural countries need no regulation. Even if those countries did need such rules, that wouldn't address whether Figoria's replacements protect its species.
- D
The policy could protect wildlife even if Figoria's past regulations were unsuccessful, or if there had been no relevant regulations before. We need a connection between this proposed policy and its promised result, not a record of success for past policies.
- E
The species don't have to rank among the most severely threatened for the commission to want to protect them. A less threatened species could still be harmed by losing its habitat. Ranking the species by danger does not establish whether the replacement habitat supports them.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.