PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 23
Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys(35 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ANo habitat other(13 more words not shown)
- BAt least some(22 more words not shown)
- CWithout plentiful supplies(11 more words not shown)
- DIf conservationists intervene(13 more words not shown)
- EWithout the intervention(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The first statement makes conservationists' intervention necessary for the squirrel monkeys' survival. Without it, they become extinct. That doesn't promise success whenever conservationists intervene; an effort could still fail.
The next statement does give a guarantee: preserving large tracts of second-growth forest for the monkeys will ensure they survive. The abundant insects and fruit explain why the habitat is favorable. We aren't told that this is the only habitat or the only possible way to help them.
Now connect the two statements. If the forest is preserved, the monkeys survive. Whenever they survive, conservationists must have intervened. So the preservation described cannot happen without that intervention. Otherwise the same situation would require both survival and extinction.
What we’re looking for
The inference question asks us to stay within those facts. I'd look for the connection between preserving the forest and conservationists' intervention, while keeping a required condition distinct from a guaranteed route to survival.
Working the answers
- A
We know this habitat has plentiful supplies of the monkeys' favorite foods. We aren't told that no other habitat has those supplies. A claim about one favorable environment doesn't rule out every other environment.
- B
Forest preservation is one way to secure survival, but the passage doesn't say conservationists will choose that method. They might pursue a breeding program or another strategy instead. Even knowing that one method would work doesn't establish that any conservationist will actually use it.
- C
Favorite foods need not be the only foods on which the monkeys can survive. The passage explains why they flourish in this forest; it doesn't establish that lacking plentiful supplies of these particular foods guarantees extinction.
- D
Intervention is required, but it hasn't been shown sufficient to save the monkeys. Conservationists might intervene in an ineffective way. D turns 'they cannot survive without help' into 'any intervention will prevent extinction,' which the ecologist never says.
- ECorrect
Suppose those large tracts were preserved without intervention. The preservation would ensure survival, but the lack of intervention would mean extinction. The two stated rules cannot both hold in that situation. Therefore, without conservationists' intervention, the forest preservation described cannot occur.
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.