PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 19
For there to be a thriving population of(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AIf the water(15 more words not shown)
- BThe most important(18 more words not shown)
- CThe water conditions(16 more words not shown)
- DWallakim Pond would(11 more words not shown)
- EThe conditions at(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is acidic water bad for turtles? The argument hasn't told us.
The first statement gives a requirement: a thriving turtle population needs beneficial conditions. Without those conditions, the population can't thrive. Be careful with the scope. There could still be some turtles in a pond where the population isn't thriving.
Then we learn that Wallakim Pond is acidic. Acidity is new information, and we haven't connected it to beneficial conditions. Could turtles tolerate it? Could it even help them in some way? We don't need an answer from a turtle biologist. We need to notice that the argument assumes the connection without giving it.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, give us this missing link: acidic water rules out beneficial conditions. Then Wallakim's acidity means it fails a requirement for a thriving turtle population. The answer has to establish that result for an acidic pond; a rule only describing nonacidic ponds may leave our actual pond unresolved.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us that nonacidic water provides beneficial conditions. Wallakim's water is acidic, so this rule doesn't tell us what its conditions are like. Both acidic and nonacidic ponds could be beneficial while A remained true. We need acidity to rule out beneficial conditions, not the absence of acidity to guarantee them.
- B
Calling acidity the most important factor doesn't tell us which way it works. Perhaps turtles do best at a certain acidic level. Perhaps acidity helps in one range and hurts in another. B never establishes that Wallakim's acidic water prevents a thriving population, so importance alone doesn't supply the missing rule.
- C
Sosachi can be better without Wallakim being bad. Imagine, just as a comparison, rating Sosachi's water 100 for turtle conditions and Wallakim's 99. Both could be excellent, with thriving populations, even though Sosachi is more beneficial.
Those numbers aren't scientific measurements; they show why a relative advantage doesn't establish that the other pond fails the required standard. C doesn't prove the conclusion about Wallakim.
- D
Wallakim could thrive if it weren't acidic and also thrive if it were acidic. D tells us what would happen under the first condition without ruling out success under the second. Since the actual pond is acidic, we still haven't established that its population can't thrive.
- ECorrect
For conditions to be beneficial, the water must not be acidic. Wallakim fails that requirement because its water is acidic. Its conditions therefore aren't beneficial to turtles.
Now apply the original requirement: a thriving turtle population needs beneficial conditions. Wallakim doesn't have them, so it cannot have a thriving population. Both links are in place. We still don't conclude that there are no turtles there at all; the conclusion concerns a thriving population.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.