PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 9
Members of large-animal species must consume enormous amounts(43 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe maximum population(24 more words not shown)
- BThe vulnerability of(22 more words not shown)
- CWhen conditions deteriorate(17 more words not shown)
- DWithin any given(19 more words not shown)
- EWhenever climatic conditions(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An elephant needs a lot more food than a mouse. If food becomes scarce, I can see why that difference matters.
Imagine deteriorating conditions leaving only small amounts of food available. Those amounts might sustain many small animals while falling short of what the large animals need. That gives us a sensible explanation for greater vulnerability among large-animal species. There's no need to invent an objection just to have one.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what these statements most support. I'd stay close to that connection between food needs and survival. Read each answer against the explanation we've been given. Does it follow from those facts, or would we need another fact to get there?
Working the answers
- A
The passage does connect food supply with the population a species can maintain. But it never calls that the main factor determining extinction. Extreme conditions or some other problem could matter more in a particular case. Showing that food requirements contribute to vulnerability doesn't rank that contribution above every other factor.
- BCorrect
How much food individual animals need affects their species' vulnerability to extinction, at least in part. That's the relationship the passage explains: large food requirements make it harder to survive when deteriorating conditions limit the supply. B preserves the limited claim that food needs matter without declaring them the only factor or the most important one.
- C
Small-animal species don't have to wait for large-animal species to disappear before they can become extinct. The passage gives one reason large animals are more vulnerable. It doesn't rule out a different threat harming a small species while a large species survives. C imposes a requirement the passage never supplies.
- D
We're comparing kinds of animals with different food requirements, not one elephant with another elephant. Even if food needs help explain differences between species, that doesn't establish what primarily determines one individual's prospects within a species. D adds both that new comparison and an unsupported claim about the main factor.
- E
Easier to sustain doesn't mean guaranteed to survive. Conditions could become so severe that neither large nor small animals find enough food. Imagine a disaster leaving an island with almost no food at all. Small animals' lower needs would not ensure that those needs were met. E turns a relative advantage into a promise that the passage never makes.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.