#8 - Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of

[SherryZ]

HI there, thank you for your generous help!

Oct 2000 LSAT, Sec 4 LR, Q8:

I was distracted by D, but the correct answer is actually C. Could you tell me why C is right but D is wrong?? I am so confused.

Thanks again!

---Sherry

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sherry,

D actually contradicts the position of the Figorian Development Committee, since they focus on the idea that "Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife" in order to argue that Figoria should begin developing wetlands, too. The Development Committee argues that development should happen because "Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife" - this is supported by C.

[kristinaroz93]

This is how the argument appears to me:
Figorian Wildlife commission: We must regulate wetland development by enforcing the idea of creating replacement wetland habitats anytime wetland development occurs (which I assume is the turning of these natural wetlands into something that will be used for industrial purposes).

Figorian Development Commission: We should allow for the development of wetlands since it might not affect wildlife and is important for growth and also because we have conserved up until this point.

Are they not arguing two different things? I don't see where the Figorian wildlife commission ever said development shouldn't be allowed. I thought they just said that if development happens then you need to create replacement habitats and that is all.

I feel their argument would make more sense if it was over whether or not regulation should happen (which answer choice c of problem 8 speaks about), but I don't see any side arguing that development in general shouldn't happen. So in this regard the stimulus is a bit confusing to me. Anyone care to clear it up=)?

[David Boyle]

This is how the argument appears to me:
Figorian Wildlife commission: We must regulate wetland development by enforcing the idea of creating replacement wetland habitats anytime wetland development occurs (which I assume is the turning of these natural wetlands into something that will be used for industrial purposes).

Figorian Development Commission: We should allow for the development of wetlands since it might not affect wildlife and is important for growth and also because we have conserved up until this point.

Are they not arguing two different things? I don't see where the Figorian wildlife commission ever said development shouldn't be allowed. I thought they just said that if development happens then you need to create replacement habitats and that is all.

I feel their argument would make more sense if it was over whether or not regulation should happen (which answer choice c of problem 8 speaks about), but I don't see any side arguing that development in general shouldn't happen. So in this regard the stimulus is a bit confusing to me. Anyone care to clear it up=)?

Hello kristinaroz93,

Yes, maybe the argument would make more sense if it were phrased the way you say, but maybe LSAC is trying to make the argument deliberately obscure, to confuse you! They do this sometimes!
The two commissions are on somewhat different tracks in their arguments, but there is some point of connection...or maybe point of obscurity (what are the two commissions agreeing to disagree about? etc.), which answer C deals with and clears up some. Answer C seems to establish that it hasn't been proven that development in Figoria has definitely endangered species, a point which lets the development commission say, "Well, you can't prove it, so let's take a chance on it."

Hope this helps,
David

[akanshalsat]

Hello!

I guess I can understand why C is right but don't the wildlife commission people already say that the development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses HAS endangered species -- so isnt that going against C when it says "only when a reduction of populations of endangered species has been found...etc"

If its proven that the species is endangered, how is C strong enough to combat that?

Thank you!!!

[Vaidehi Joshi]

@akanshalsat, to answer your specific question:
Your mistake is assuming that what the Wildlife Comm.'s fact presented says ("The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species.") equals the fact that these species' populations have actually been reduced. That's a leap! Those aren't the same thing. Just because the species are endangered doesn't mean that their population has gone down because of the development. (C) says that we need to actually prove that their population has gone down before we take measures.

MY GENERAL STRATEGY:
To start, when I was prephrasing (once I knew it was a strengthen question that asked us to strengthen the Development Comm.'s stance (which could also be seen as a weaken question that asks us to weaken the Wildlife Comm.'s stance), I made myself highlight each argument of the Wildlife Comm., line by line:

The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species.

So, something that suggests that development isn't actually causing a problem for the species would weaken.-->THIS pretty much matches the correct answer choice (C).

future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats

so, something that suggests that constructing replacements isn't going to be the same as the original and won't bring back the species population.

would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.

So maybe something that suggests that these re-constructed habitats would actually pose some kind of new threat would weaken.

You could also do the same type of prephrasing for each argument of the Development Comm., but look to strengthen instead of weaken:

Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved.

So, something that suggests that we should not be any more conscious about development than other nations would help.

Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development.

So, something that says that either development does not usually affect wildlife, OR alternatively, that development is indeed necessary for growth, would help.

We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use

So, something that says we indeed do have as much right to govern our resources would help.

This is all what I'm keeping in mind as a prephrase, and stuff that I will be on the lookout for in each answer choice.

(C) Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.

[blade21cn]

Just wanted to clarify some confusions I have with this question. The stimulus is about two person's dialogues, but Q7 is specific to Figorian Wildlife Commission's argument and Q8 is specific to Figorian Development Commission's argument. I really do not see the point of combining the two arguments in answering either question. I tend to think Q7 and Q8 are indeed two separate questions.

In this question, the instructors seem to focus on the premise "since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife," but that is just one of at least four premises in support of the conclusion. It seems to me that the general argumentative approach is that since other nations have done it (i.e., allowing development), albeit at the expense of wildlife, we should do it too.

I agree that (D) contradicts the premise that regulations allowing development could result in further environmental damage - "at the expense of wildlife" and "put natural resources to commercial use," but wouldn't (C) contradict that same idea? In other words, development should be allowed, albeit at the expense of wildlife, which includes reduction of populations of endangered species and other potential detrimental consequences.

[Robert Carroll]

blade,

You've ignored the second sentence, and misunderstood the Development Commission's (DC for short) argument as a consequence. The DC is saying that other countries have developed at the expense of wildlife, but that Figoria has instead conserved. So the DC is showing a lack of analogy between other countries and Figoria in a way that shows Figoria to be in a better position than those other countries to develop without causing harm.

If anyone has a premise "that regulations allowing development could result in further environmental damage", it would be the Wildlife Commission, wouldn't it? The DC is not trying to show that allowing development could result in damage - the DC wants development to happen, and thinks that environmental damage resulting from it would be insignificant. So I'm not sure what your comment about answer choice (D) means.

Answer choice (C) is a conditional, roughly: "regulate development only when there are known reductions of endangered populations." Sufficient = "regulate development" and necessary = "known reductions". Because the DC is saying, in the third sentence, that there isn't any known harm yet, the contrapositive would tell me not to regulate development, which is what the DC wants.

Robert Carroll