#16 - Wildlife management experts should not interfere

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The author concludes that wildlife management experts should not interfere with the habitats of wild creatures. Her conclusion is based on an implicit cost/benefit analysis, weighing the benefits of environmental protection (protection of endangered species) against its costs (possible harm to nonendangered species). While the difficulties posed to nonendangered species are certainly reasons against altering the environment, they do not prove that wildlife experts should not interfere with the environment. After all, the benefits to endangered species could potentially outweigh the cost to nonendangered species.

This is an error in the Use of Evidence. While the author has offered some evidence against interfering with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, she has not proven that experts should not interfere with them.

Answer Choice (A): This is never a flaw. Although the “experts” may have extensive knowledge in their field, this does not mean they are above criticism. It is perfectly valid to attack an expert’s argument.

Answer Choice (B): The argument already notes that nonendangered species will suffer harm as a result of interference with the environment. The argument does not need to go any further by showing that nonendangered species can easily become endangered as well.

Answer Choice (C): The argument does not overlook this possibility. On the contrary: the author acknowledges that nonendangered species can suffer hardship as a result of efforts to preserve endangered species.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is close, but incorrect. While the author does presume that the survival of nonendangered species is equally important to the survival of endangered species, she does not presume that the survival of each endangered species is equally important to the health of the environment.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice addresses a flawed assumption made by the author. Whenever the language in a Flaw in the Reasoning answer choice refers to something that the author “takes for granted,” the answer is referring to something the author assumes. Here, the author assumes that the survival of nonendangered species is just as important as the survival of endangered species. In other words, she fails to consider the possibility that it may be more important to preserve an endangered species than it is to avoid harming a nonendangered species.

[lathlee]

Admin edit: due to LSAC policies and copyright law, complete LSAT questions cannot be posted online. However, posting in this section of the forum (Test Explanations) immediately identifies the question, and eliminates the need for the text to be posted. Note: you can quote small sections of the question as needed for your question.

problem i have: they are two. Firstly I cannot identity which common type error reasoing describted in ch 13 of logical reasoning book published by powerscore.
problem 2: my best guess is that this flaw in the reasoning is regarindg the question and the question stem asks to identity mistaken cause and effect error; this is why i blieve that i described above: As in of "manipulating the environment to make it easier for endangered species to survive in a habitat" creates effect of "making it harder for non-endangered species to survive in that habitat "


i thought the correct answer has something to do with cause and effect relationship as I staed above, so the correct qustion stem must point out: assuming a casual relationship on the basis of the sequences of events OR failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect, OR an alternate cause for both the cause and the effect.

IF mistaken cause and effect is not the flaw in the reasoning described here, the alternative I thought were:
Or probably or possibly false dilemma as in of manipulating the environment for endangered species first would necessarily lead to non-endangered species , there might be other way of protecting endangered speiceis whilst not endangering non-endangered species.

according to the test makers: the correct answer choice is A) it doesn't seem like category of mistaken cause and effect.

My ultimate concerns is what error of reasoning A) is describing for . and Am i on the right track or completely misguided ?
What is the correct answer? Thank you

[Robert Carroll]

lathlee,

This is an Error in the Use of Evidence. The author presents some negative effects of manipulating the environment in favor of endangered species, but because those negative effects aren't quantified, we cannot yet be sure that they outweigh the positive effects of doing that manipulation. The author proceeds to a strong conclusion immediately on weak evidence, so the author is acting as if some evidence is decisive evidence.

This is not an error of causal reasoning because the connection between endangered and nonendangered species you identified in the stimulus was entirely contained in a premise. The author said that was true. A flaw arises from concluding something that is different than what is shown in the facts of the premises, but acting like the premises did indeed make the conclusion definitely true.

Robert Carroll

[lathlee]

Thank you so much for the answer, it helped me a lot.