PrepTest 148, Section 3, Question 13
Some ornithologists believe that many species of songbirds(59 more words not shown)
The claim that there has(14 more words not shown)
- AIt is used(14 more words not shown)
- BIt is presented(17 more words not shown)
- CIt is presented(18 more words not shown)
- DIt is used(21 more words not shown)
- EIt is presented(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Planting trees doesn't necessarily undo every consequence of losing a forest. At first, I might wonder whether some damage has already been done and takes time to repair. But the ornithologists—scientists who study birds—give a more specific explanation.
The amount of forest isn't the whole problem. Open spaces and corridors divide it into pieces, leaving nests closer to places where predators can reach them. Adding trees can increase the amount of forest without removing those gaps. That makes it understandable that reforestation and worsening danger to songbirds could occur together.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the reforestation claim is doing. The ornithologists accept that trees have been replanted. They're explaining why that fact doesn't establish the recovery we might expect. Keep the accepted fact separate from what someone might assume it means for the birds.
Working the answers
- A
Reforestation isn't the evidence offered for the continuing danger. The explanation of danger concerns fragmentation and reduced protection from predators. Reforestation is the fact that might initially make us expect improvement, which the ornithologists show can coexist with their concern.
- B
The ornithologists don't reject the claim that reforestation occurred. They say matters are worsening despite it. Accepting a fact while questioning an expected consequence of that fact is different from denying the fact itself.
- CCorrect
'Phenomenon' here just means the thing that has happened: reforestation. 'Compatible' means it can be true alongside the other claim. More trees can be planted while fragmented forest still leaves songbirds increasingly exposed to predators. The argument explains how both facts fit, rather than treating reforestation as either false or a guarantee of recovery.
- D
This makes reforestation evidence that predators will retain habitat. That isn't the role the passage gives it. The stated mechanism is that gaps leave songbirds less shielded from predators; the passage doesn't use the new trees to establish that the predators themselves have a place to live.
- E
Nothing here claims that the predators face extinction without access corridors. The threat being discussed is to songbirds. Changing the subject to predators' survival doesn't describe the role of the reforestation claim or the conclusion the explanation supports.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.