PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 23
Environmental ethicist: Since whooping cranes, unlike sandhill cranes,(64 more words not shown)
The environmental ethicist's reasoning conforms(9 more words not shown)
- AAny duty to(22 more words not shown)
- BThe more important(25 more words not shown)
- CThe fewer species(15 more words not shown)
- DThere is a(20 more words not shown)
- EThere is a(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Imagine there are a hundred whooping cranes and a billion sandhill cranes. Those are made-up numbers, but they make the comparison easy to see. Losing one of the hundred removes a much larger share of that species than losing one of the billion removes of the other.
So I can understand why the survival of an individual whooping crane matters more to preserving its species. What does the ethicist want us to do with that fact? Protect that individual more strongly than we protect an individual sandhill crane.
There's a value judgment in that step. What if someone says, 'I don't think we have a duty to preserve endangered species'? Explaining how important one bird is to the species wouldn't, by itself, settle that person's objection. The argument treats importance to species preservation as a reason for a greater duty to protect.
What we’re looking for
The principle question asks us to state that reasoning more generally. My prediction is: the more an individual's survival matters to preserving its species, the greater our duty to protect that individual. Keep both parts—the reason for the comparison and the resulting duty.
Working the answers
- A
The argument connects the duty toward an individual with the individual's importance to its species. A separates those concerns entirely. That would remove the connection the ethicist relies on rather than express it.
- BCorrect
The whooping crane's survival is more important to preserving its species, so we have a greater duty to protect that crane. B takes the very comparison used as evidence and makes it a basis for the comparison in duties. It matches the argument's reasoning, not just its general concern for endangered animals.
- C
How many closely related species exist is a new consideration. We aren't comparing the cranes' relatives or asking whether another species could replace them. We're comparing how much one member's survival matters to the preservation of its own species.
- D
This is tempting because it gives priority to species preservation. But compare the actual objects being ranked. D ranks a whole species above one member of that species. The argument ranks our duty toward an individual whooping crane above our duty toward an individual sandhill crane.
D doesn't explain why the first individual deserves greater protection than the second. B does, by connecting each bird's importance to its species with the duty to protect it. A shared interest in species preservation isn't enough when the comparison itself changes.
- E
This permits a greater duty toward one individual only when that individual belongs to an endangered species and the other does not. The argument uses that difference in this case, but doesn't make it a requirement for every comparison of duties. Suppose someone feels a special duty toward a non-endangered pet bird in their care, compared with another non-endangered bird. The ethicist hasn't ruled out that reason for a greater duty, while E's required difference in endangered status is absent.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.