PrepTest 157, Section 4, Question 22
Political arguments about biodiversity and the preservation of(443 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(28 more words not shown)
- AIt is becoming(10 more words not shown)
- BIncreasing the number(18 more words not shown)
- CIn disputes over(10 more words not shown)
- DAdvances in scientific(16 more words not shown)
- EProponents of the(21 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The claim is about a consequence: recognizing more species would probably increase the number needing protection. One possible bridge would be that splitting a broad category reveals smaller, vulnerable populations. We need something connecting reclassification to endangered populations, not merely making reclassification more likely.
What we’re looking for
The correct answer uses a different but related route: it tells us which existing classifications splitters are most likely to challenge.
Working the answers
- A
Difficulty reaching protection agreements doesn't show whether recognizing more species increases the number needing protection. Need for protection and the political ability to provide it are different questions.
- B
Whether the newly recognized species are birds or mammals doesn't establish whether they are endangered. We would need an additional connection between those categories and the need for protection.
- C
The influence of economic considerations on protection decisions doesn't show that reclassification will identify more species in need. It describes how disputes may be resolved, not the effect of drawing new species boundaries.
- D
Better techniques helping splitters could make reclassification more likely. But the claim we are supporting concerns what follows from recognizing more species, not whether splitters will win more arguments.
- ECorrect
If splitters are less likely to challenge a classification when none of its populations is endangered, reclassification is more likely where a vulnerable population is present. If that population is then recognized as a separate species, an additional species needing protection enters the count. This links the proposed splits to populations already at risk, rather than just to new names for secure populations. It doesn't guarantee every split will produce an endangered species, but the author's claim is only that the number would probably increase.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.