PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 6
After an oil spill, rehabilitation centers were set(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(16 more words not shown)
- ADo sea otters(21 more words not shown)
- BHow is it(14 more words not shown)
- CDid the process(18 more words not shown)
- DWere other species(11 more words not shown)
- EWhat was the(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the 222 otters that survived?
The author treats the small percentage saved as evidence that the rehabilitation effort wasn't worthwhile. But what would have happened without the centers? If those 222 otters would otherwise have died, saving them seems like a real benefit. Failing to save most of the affected animals doesn't mean the effort accomplished nothing.
The author then makes the percentage smaller by including otters that died but were never found. That adds another piece of evidence to an argument we already have reason to question.
What we’re looking for
Notice the exact task, though. We're asked to challenge the evidence offered in support of the conclusion. My initial concern was whether the author properly valued the survivors. Now we need to examine the basis for the facts being offered, rather than simply give another consideration that might make the effort worthwhile.
Working the answers
- A
Otters of other species living outside the affected area tell us nothing about the accuracy of the counts or estimates used here. The argument concerns what this rehabilitation effort accomplished after this spill.
- BCorrect
How did the author determine that only one fifth of the otters that died immediately were found? The found bodies can be counted. The total, including unfound bodies, needs some additional basis.
This challenges a specific piece of evidence: the estimate used to make the success percentage lower still. It doesn't establish that estimating unfound deaths is impossible. It asks for the method supporting that estimate. If the estimate is unreliable, the author's additional reason for minimizing the rehabilitation's success becomes questionable. That's a different challenge from my initial thought about the 222 survivors, but it fits the question's focus on the evidence.
- C
Trapping and releasing unaffected otters doesn't, by itself, show that the counts of affected otters are wrong. It describes something that may have happened during the operation, without identifying a problem with the evidence the author uses.
- D
Harm to other wildlife could matter to an assessment of the whole spill. But whether other species suffered doesn't challenge the evidence offered about the otters or the proportion successfully rehabilitated.
- E
Cost could matter to a broader judgment about whether the effort was worthwhile. But the author hasn't offered a cost claim for us to challenge. E asks for a new consideration; B questions the basis of an estimate actually used as evidence.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.