PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 19
Forester: The great majority of the forests remaining(64 more words not shown)
The forester's statements, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AMost of the(17 more words not shown)
- BUnless resource managers(19 more words not shown)
- CA fragmented forest(18 more words not shown)
- DA complete, fully(20 more words not shown)
- EAt present, resource(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
These forests may not be able to keep all their species without help. That's especially troubling when some endangered species have their last refuges there.
The forester says a great majority of the remaining forests are fragmented, and a fragmented forest needs regular intervention to retain its full set of plant and animal species. So if those interventions don't happen, we should expect losses. The need for help matters even if we don't yet know which species a particular forest would lose.
What we’re looking for
For the most-strongly-supported question, keep that dependence in view. We can connect the statement about most forests with the requirement for preserving all their species. That doesn't give us a recommendation about government funding, or facts about a particular species such as pandas. Stay with the consequences of needing this help.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Most forests are fragmented, and fragmented forests need regular intervention to keep their full set of species. Without intervention, they won't keep all those species—which means losing at least some. A combines the first statement about how widespread fragmentation is with the last statement about what preserving a fragmented forest requires. It doesn't claim that every species will disappear or that a species lost from one forest must become extinct everywhere.
- B
This is tempting because the passage does connect endangered species with forests needing help. But why must managers intervene in most of the world's forests to save those particular species?
Imagine 10,000 forests, with the last refuges of the endangered species mentioned concentrated in just five. Protecting those five could address the danger to those species without intervening in over half of all 10,000 forests. The passage doesn't tell us how the endangered species are distributed. B adds a requirement about the number of forests needing intervention for their survival, while A only says what most forests risk losing without help.
- C
A forest could lose a particular frog or earthworm species and still sustain the species that remain. The passage says keeping the full set requires intervention. It doesn't say losing even one member of that set makes the remaining ecosystem unable to sustain itself. C adds that stronger connection.
- D
Our rule concerns fragmented forests. We aren't given a guarantee that every fully functioning forest can always retain every species without intervention. The absence of the described damage doesn't establish that no other difficulty could ever require help.
- E
Needing regular intervention doesn't tell us how often managers actually provide it. They might intervene in some fragmented forests, all of them, or fewer than the forester would consider necessary. E makes a claim about present practice that the passage never supplies.
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.