PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 10
Fishery officials are still considering options for eliminating(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ADraining the lake(9 more words not shown)
- BFour years ago(14 more words not shown)
- CThe poison added(16 more words not shown)
- DFour years ago,(11 more words not shown)
- ESalmon and trout(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Getting rid of the pike sounds easier than finding a good way to do it.
The concern is that these fish could enter the river system and threaten salmon and trout. Disease and draining the lake are off the table. Poison has already been tried, and I can see why people might worry about what else it affects. We are told the water stayed tainted for months and tourism suffered.
What we’re looking for
And the officials are still looking for a way to eliminate the pike. So the earlier effort hasn't left them with the problem solved. We aren't given a promising new solution, and we don't need to invent one. For the most-supported question, test each answer against the limited facts, including that continuing search.
Working the answers
- A
Draining the lake has been ruled out, but we aren't told why. It could hurt tourism, or the objection could concern something else. The fact that poison harmed tourism doesn't establish that draining the lake would avoid that problem.
- B
We are told about an attempt four years ago, not a complete history of every attempt. Poison might also have been used at another time. Mentioning one occasion doesn't establish that it was the only occasion.
- CCorrect
The officials are still considering how to eliminate the lake's pike population even though poison was added four years ago for that purpose. The natural inference is that the earlier attempt failed to rid the lake of the pike. This connects the past effort with the continuing problem instead of adding an unsupported claim about what should happen next.
- D
Using poison doesn't mean it was the only option considered. The officials might have discussed several approaches before choosing it. The passage tells us what they did, not everything they thought about before doing it.
- E
The threatened salmon and trout could be important for environmental reasons without being essential to the economy. We know the contaminated water hurt tourism; that doesn't establish that these particular fish populations are economically indispensable. E joins two concerns in a way the passage never states.
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.