PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 16
Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the(36 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(19 more words not shown)
- Bfails to recognize(10 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the possibility(20 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(17 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if protecting the endangered species matters more?
We should accept the tradeoff the argument gives us: helping an endangered species survive makes survival harder for some nonendangered species in that habitat. Picture protecting a rare prey species from predators. The prey benefits, but the predators have a harder time finding food.
Does that settle what the wildlife experts should do? Suppose only five members of the prey species remain, while the predator population is plentiful. Preventing the loss of those last few animals could be worth making life somewhat harder for the predators. That's a hypothetical comparison, not a claim about particular animals' conservation status.
What we’re looking for
The author treats the cost to nonendangered species as enough to prohibit interference. The flaw is the missing comparison of priorities. Showing that a choice has a downside doesn't establish that its benefit is less important, and the species' endangered status gives us an obvious reason to question that assumption.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing how to help a species doesn't settle whether helping it is worth the cost to other species. Even highly skilled experts could face the tradeoff described. The argument concerns whether to intervene, not whether the experts know an effective method.
- B
If nonendangered species can become endangered, that gives us an additional reason to take harm to them seriously. It doesn't expose why the argument wrongly rejects intervention. The author is already using the cost to nonendangered species as a reason against it.
- C
A conflict between saving one species and maintaining overall diversity could support caution about intervening. It doesn't show that the author has wrongly treated the cost of intervention as decisive. The objection we need concerns why saving the endangered species might deserve priority despite a cost.
- D
This compares endangered species with one another. The argument doesn't need to treat every endangered species as equally important. Its reasoning instead turns on a comparison between helping an endangered species and making survival harder for nonendangered species. D targets a different ranking.
- ECorrect
The author assumes that preserving the endangered species doesn't take priority over preserving the nonendangered ones. But that is exactly what needs to be addressed before condemning intervention. If the endangered species deserves greater priority, the stated tradeoff could be worth accepting. We don't have to prove intervention is always right to see that the blanket prohibition hasn't been justified.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.