PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 8
Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in(109 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(18 more words not shown)
- ANational resources should(9 more words not shown)
- BThe right of(13 more words not shown)
- COnly when a(20 more words not shown)
- DEnvironmental regulation must(23 more words not shown)
- EIt is imprudent(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“We have conserved” sounds like the beginning of a defense of wildlife. But the Development Commission uses that history to make a different point: other countries have developed their resources, and Figoria should be allowed to develop its resources too.
The commission says development is necessary for growth and might not affect wildlife. Might not isn't the same as won't. The wildlife risk remains unsettled. The commission nevertheless wants development to proceed rather than face the proposed replacement-habitat requirement.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for a principle supporting the Development Commission against the Wildlife Commission. I'd expect a rule favoring development—for example, one that gives economic needs priority over conservation. That's a possible route, not the only one. Keep our target straight: the answer needs to support allowing development in the circumstances the commission describes.
Working the answers
- A
International regulation isn't the policy this commission is defending. It emphasizes Figoria's right to govern its own resources. A rule favoring international agreements when wildlife is endangered doesn't establish that Figoria should proceed with the development it wants.
- B
This gives wildlife preservation priority over a country's economic needs. That's the opposite of the direction we need. The Development Commission appeals to the need for growth; B says that need yields to the rights of future generations to preserved wildlife.
- CCorrect
This supplies a different route from simply putting the economy first. It says regulations aimed at preventing further damage should be imposed only after commercial development has been found to reduce endangered-species populations.
The Development Commission presents harm from Figorian development as something not established: it might not affect wildlife. C supports resisting the proposed precautionary requirement until the specified kind of harm has been found. That helps the commission's case for allowing development despite the concern about possible damage.
We don't have to conclude that development is harmless. The principle addresses when regulation is justified, which is exactly what the two commissions are contesting.
- D
This insists on preventing any further environmental damage and says countries' different histories of damage shouldn't matter. The Development Commission specifically relies on its history of conservation compared with other countries' development. D removes force from that appeal rather than supporting it.
- E
Calling further depletion of resources imprudent gives us a reason to hesitate about more development. It doesn't support the commission's request to put resources to commercial use. The fact that E concerns the environment doesn't put it on the right side of this dispute.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.