PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 23
Columnist: Although much has been learned, we are(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIt is strongly(10 more words not shown)
- BWe should not(15 more words not shown)
- CWe should not(21 more words not shown)
- DWe should not(21 more words not shown)
- EWe should always(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A species we don't care about might be keeping alive one we do care about.
Imagine one species providing food for another. Losing the first could threaten the second, even if we had paid little attention to the first. The columnist's concern is that relationships like these are intricate and still poorly understood. We may not know which loss could start a chain of further losses.
That explains the caution, but why does uncertainty tell us to preserve as many species as possible? The recommendation needs a rule connecting a possible threat to something we value with a duty to avoid that threat. It doesn't need us to prove that every extinction would trigger a disaster.
What we’re looking for
For the principle question, I'd look for a rule telling us to protect what matters when we can't be sure a change is safe. That would turn the uncertainty about species' relationships into a reason for broad preservation.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion already makes its recommendation conditional on our having an interest in preserving some species. A tells us we do have such an interest, but it doesn't explain why caring about certain species requires trying to preserve the maximum number. We still need the connection through possible harm to the species we value.
- B
This could block preservation efforts too: we haven't established every relevant scientific fact, so B tells us not to take any action. The columnist recommends trying to preserve species despite incomplete knowledge. A rule against all action under uncertainty doesn't justify that recommendation.
- C
This sets a standard tied to what human populations need in order to flourish. The columnist's argument concerns preserving species we have an interest in, which needn't be limited to species necessary for human flourishing. C doesn't tell us how uncertainty about relationships among those species requires preserving the maximum number. It supplies a different criterion without connecting it to the stated concern.
- DCorrect
We should not permit a change unless we're assured it won't jeopardize anything important to us. Here, the change is allowing a species to disappear. What is important to us is the survival of another species we want to preserve.
Because we don't fully understand the relationships, we lack assurance that losing the first species won't threaten the second. D says that uncertainty is a reason not to allow the change. The species we initially regarded with indifference thus receives protection because of the possible risk to something we care about. That is the missing decision rule.
- E
The argument doesn't establish which policy has the best consequences in the immediate future. Its concern is possible harm through relationships we don't fully understand, and that harm could emerge later. An immediate-results rule doesn't justify the columnist's broader precaution.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.