PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 12
After the disastrous 1986 accident at the Chernobyl(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AAnimals that did(25 more words not shown)
- BSome of the(25 more words not shown)
- CThe region affected(15 more words not shown)
- DWhile some of(15 more words not shown)
- EThe threat of(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the people left and the animals took over?
The radiation makes the population growth seem surprising. We might expect a contaminated area to be a bad place for wildlife, and the animals living there do have high radiation levels. Yet their numbers have grown rapidly. We need something that makes that increase understandable without denying the contamination.
If people moved away, the region might become more like a wildlife preserve. Animals could occupy space that humans previously used. That gives us a promising explanation: another change after the disaster might benefit wildlife even while radiation remains a problem.
We could also ask whether radiation somehow increased reproduction, though that's a much more speculative guess. We have no evidence for it. The more straightforward prediction is that the disappearance of people changed the animals' surroundings in a helpful way.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to resolve the discrepancy, so look for a reason populations grew. Explaining how an animal became contaminated, or why some animals escaped harm, wouldn't by itself explain the increase.
Working the answers
- A
New arrivals also become contaminated. That tells us exposure continues after the original accident. It doesn't explain why the number of animals has grown despite the contamination. The answer elaborates on the problem rather than giving us a reason for the population increase.
- B
A migrating bird might spend only part of the year in the region and therefore have less exposure. That could help explain why some animals suffer less harm than others. But it doesn't tell us what changed after the disaster to make wildlife populations expand rapidly. Limited exposure isn't the positive explanation we're looking for.
- C
The affected area is large. Why would animal populations increase within it? Its size alone gives no reason for growth after the accident. A large contaminated region could have growing or shrinking populations, depending on other circumstances.
- D
Some chemicals reduce fertility and others do not. That gives us a harmful effect and an absence of that particular harmful effect. It doesn't give us increased fertility or some other change explaining rapid population growth. Don't turn 'doesn't depress fertility' into 'increases fertility.'
- ECorrect
People left, creating more habitat and removing the threat from hunters. Both changes can help wildlife populations grow. This matches the prediction that animals benefited from humans leaving. Radiation doesn't have to become harmless for the overall situation to permit more animals: there is another change that works in wildlife's favor.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.