PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 25
New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AWhile both surveys(22 more words not shown)
- BThe more recent(18 more words not shown)
- CMigration of wildlife(28 more words not shown)
- DThe most recent(14 more words not shown)
- EThe more recent(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More animals is encouraging. But does it establish that the development caused no harm?
Suppose something else improved conditions in the park while the neighboring development made them worse. The population could still increase overall. The increase wouldn't show what the population would have been without the development. We might also wonder about effects that take longer to appear, although a possible future problem wouldn't by itself establish that harm has already occurred.
The point we're strengthening is the opening claim: the development hasn't adversely affected the park's wildlife. We don't need to show it caused the population increase. And the fact that the park can currently support its animals addresses overcrowding; it doesn't settle every possible kind of harm.
What we’re looking for
What additional evidence would help? Perhaps the development draws some disruptive tourist activity away from the park. That's a possible route, not a precise answer I'm expecting. I'd look for information making the apparently good news about the wildlife a firmer basis for the no-harm conclusion.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
At first this may sound like a repeat of 'the amount of wildlife increased.' But it adds something important: every species found in the earlier survey is still present, and each species has more animals.
A larger total could otherwise hide a loss. Imagine deer increasing from 100 to 200 while wolves fall from 20 to 5. There would be more animals altogether, but the wolves would be doing worse. A rules out that kind of uneven population change.
That doesn't prove the development had no adverse effect of any kind. It does make the evidence more broadly favorable: the reported gain isn't just a large increase in one species concealing declines in others.
- B
A summer survey, when wildlife diversity is greatest, raises a question about whether the two surveys are comparable. If the earlier survey was taken in another season, part of the apparent improvement could reflect timing. B doesn't strengthen the claim that development left wildlife unharmed.
- C
Migration can explain an increase inside the park without establishing that development caused no harm. Animals might move in because nearby habitat was disturbed. The comparison with what the park could support a decade ago also doesn't tell us whether current animals have been harmed; the passage already says present resources support them without strain.
- D
Improved detection could produce a larger count even if the actual population hadn't grown. The newer survey might simply find animals that older methods missed. That undermines reliance on the count comparison rather than making it stronger.
- E
An inventory of plants could be relevant if we knew its findings and had something useful to compare them with. This only says an inventory was made. It doesn't tell us whether plant life was healthy, declining, or affected by development, so it adds no support for the no-harm claim.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.