PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 2
Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural(26 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AScientists are better(12 more words not shown)
- BSpecies that would(13 more words not shown)
- CScientists estimate that(8 more words not shown)
- DMany countries do(13 more words not shown)
- EPrograms have been(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Failing to solve the problem doesn't mean failing to help.
The extinction rate is rising despite greater efforts to protect habitats. Why might that happen? Pollution, hunting, or habitat destruction could be getting worse faster than conservation efforts can keep up. Those are possibilities to consider, not facts the passage gives us. They help explain why the overall situation might deteriorate even while the protection efforts do some good.
What would have happened without those efforts? Perhaps even more species would have disappeared. Imagine owing $1,000 and paying off $500. You're still in debt, but that doesn't make the payment pointless. Likewise, saving some species can matter even if many others are still lost.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the claim that the efforts are wasted. I'd look for evidence of a real benefit: perhaps these programs saved five species that otherwise would have become extinct. They don't have to save every species to accomplish something.
Working the answers
- A
Better ability to preserve habitats sounds promising, but ability isn't an actual result of these efforts. Scientists could have better techniques available without the international programs successfully using them to save species. The comparison with the past doesn't establish the concrete benefit we want.
- BCorrect
These refuges saved species that otherwise would have become extinct. That answers our question about what would have happened without the efforts: some of the species now alive would have disappeared. Extinctions can continue to rise overall while these particular successes still show that the work wasn't wasted.
- C
Knowing that at least 2,000 species disappear each year doesn't tell us what the programs accomplish. Perhaps 2,500 would disappear without them. Or perhaps the programs make no difference. The total alone doesn't settle whether the efforts help.
- D
The economic benefits of tourism aren't the benefit this argument is assessing. We're asking whether protecting habitats helps save species, not whether countries recognize an opportunity to make money. This doesn't connect the conservation efforts with a reduction in extinctions.
- E
A proposed program isn't evidence that the existing efforts have worked. We don't know whether the transfers will happen or whether moving the species will successfully protect them. The author is dismissing efforts already being made; a plan for future action doesn't supply the missing evidence of their benefit.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.