PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 9
Naturalist: The recent claims that the Tasmanian tiger(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ASheep farming drove(13 more words not shown)
- BSome scavengers in(10 more words not shown)
- CEvery naturalist working(15 more words not shown)
- DThe Tasmanian tiger(16 more words not shown)
- EThose who have(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“The claims that it isn't extinct are false” means the naturalist is taking a firm position: the Tasmanian tiger is gone. All right—what supports that certainty?
Losing its habitat to sheep farming and being systematically eliminated from the area are serious evidence. I can see why we'd think it died out. But did any animals get away? What if some moved to a different region, perhaps deep into the mountains, and survived there?
The next fact makes me keep that question open: naturalists working in the region haven't found tracks, carcasses, or other hard evidence. That tells us what hasn't been found there. It doesn't automatically settle what might be living somewhere else.
And there are alleged sightings? I'd like to hear more about those. Who saw the animals? Was there a clear recording, or just a distant shape someone thought they recognized? I'm not accepting every report, but I don't want to dismiss them without knowing why.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument depends on. So the question isn't whether a choice would be helpful; it's whether the reasoning needs it. The naturalist has to close the opening between no evidence in this region and no animals left. The argument also needs a reason not to treat the sightings as proof of survival. Let's see which required commitment the choices actually give us.
Working the answers
- A
Starvation is one possible way the animals could have died, but this argument doesn't need that particular story. They could have been killed directly or died through some other effect of losing their habitat. Rejecting starvation wouldn't, by itself, defeat the naturalist's claim of extinction.
- B
This would give us another reason carcasses might be missing even if some animals had survived. That makes the lack of carcasses less useful as evidence of extinction. More basically, the naturalist doesn't need scavengers with this ability for the argument to work. The argument can be made without that explanation for missing remains.
- C
Every naturalist? Some could be studying birds rather than looking for Tasmanian tigers. Some could search without following a systematic method. The absence of a universal, systematic search doesn't automatically defeat all evidence offered by the naturalists who do search. The argument doesn't require every person working in the habitat to have done this.
- DCorrect
This closes the escape route we noticed while reading. If the animals moved and adapted to a different region, their disappearance from the old habitat wouldn't establish their extinction. Looking in the old region and finding no traces would be consistent with their living elsewhere.
The naturalist relies on ruling out that relocation in moving from the regional evidence to the conclusion that the species no longer exists. D doesn't answer every question about the sightings or make the whole case indisputable. A required assumption can be one necessary part of the reasoning without solving every possible weakness.
- E
We wanted more information about the sightings, so this is tempting. But an experienced naturalist can make a mistaken identification, and an inexperienced observer can see an animal correctly. Rejecting the sightings doesn't require rejecting the observers' experience.
The author needs the reports not to establish survival. It doesn't follow that every person who reported one must lack experience. E supplies a particular way to cast doubt on the reports, not something the argument has to assume.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.