PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 7
Principle: People should not feed wild animals because(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(21 more words not shown)
- ACongregating around human(11 more words not shown)
- BSome species of(14 more words not shown)
- CWild birds are(19 more words not shown)
- DMost bird lovers(18 more words not shown)
- EHuman settlement is(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does feeding the birds create the dependency the rule is worried about?
The principle gives a reason to avoid feeding wild animals: they become dependent and less able to survive on their own. Putting out food to attract birds falls under that general warning. Liking the birds doesn't by itself answer the concern about their survival.
What we’re looking for
But we're asked to justify an exception. My first prediction is that feeding these birds might not make them dependent on people. If that harmful effect doesn't follow in this situation, the reason for the general rule would have less force here. Let's look for something that addresses the dependency problem.
Working the answers
- A
Greater vulnerability to predators and disease would add another danger of feeding. It gives us more reason to question the practice, not a reason to exempt it from a rule meant to protect wild animals.
- B
Birds eating mosquitoes may benefit humans. That doesn't address whether feeding them makes them dependent or less able to survive. A benefit to us isn't, by itself, an answer to the particular harm to birds that supports the principle.
- C
This explains why putting food out attracts birds, which is what the bird lovers want. It doesn't show that the resulting feeding is safe for the birds or that the dependency concern fails to apply. An effective way to attract an animal needn't be a justified way to treat it.
- D
Preserving habitats is another activity by bird lovers. Doing that good thing doesn't establish that feeding birds avoids the harm described by this principle. We need a reason for the feeding exception, not a general favorable impression of the people doing it.
- ECorrect
The birds already have to rely partly on human food because settlement is so widespread. That changes my initial prediction: we don't need to say the birds are wholly independent. The point is that refusing to feed them won't preserve the complete independence the rule is meant to protect; their habitat already makes some dependence unavoidable.
This gives a reason to make an exception and help birds obtain food they need. It doesn't prove every feeding practice harmless or that additional dependence is impossible. It addresses the reason for the general prohibition well enough to support treating these birds differently.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.