#13 - Some ornithologists believe that many species of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (C)

For test takers familiar with the LSAT’s common use of the “some people say...” rhetorical device,
this can be a very tricky question. The stimulus begins with what appears to be an obvious example
of that technique, with the author telling us the view of “some ornithologists.” However, the stimulus
author continues throughout the stimulus to express the view of the ornithologists, and never takes a
position contrary to them. So, although the stimulus is designed to make you believe that the author
will disagree with the ornithologists, the author merely presents their argument.

The author tells us that these ornithologists have come to the conclusion that deforestation is
threatening many species of songbirds. They think this because the fragmentation of the forests
creates open spaces within forests that reduce the distance between unforested areas and songbird
nests. Since the forested areas provide songbirds a natural shield from their predators, the creation of
these open spaces and corridors through deforestation threatens them. And apparently the problem
continues to get worse even though there has been recent reforestation, because the issue is not
simply the number of trees, but rather the fragmentation of the forest.

This is a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question. More specifically, the question stem
tells us to select the answer choice that best describes the role played in the argument by the claim
that “there has recently been reforestation.” We can prephrase that this statement was neither a
premise nor a conclusion, but rather a statement of fact that did not run counter to the ornithologists’
conclusion.

Answer choice (A): The statement identified in the question was not a premise, here referred to as
“evidence.”

Answer choice (B): Although at first glance the fact that there has been reforestation would
seem to run counter to the ornithologists’ conclusion, it did not do so and was not rejected by the
ornithologists.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The fact that reforestation has occurred is
compatible with the ornithologists’ argument because it is the fragmentation of the forest, and not
just the reduced number of trees in the forest, that is endangering the songbirds.

Answer choice (D): The claim that there has been reforestation was not offered as a premise, and the
argument did not contain a conclusion regarding the continuation of songbird predator habitats.

Answer choice (E): Again, the claim regarding reforestation was not a premise in the argument.

[candaceross]

Hello,

I narrowed the answer choices to A and C, and picked A. I'm having a hard time seeing a difference between these two answers though.

Can you please explain to me what I'm missing?
Thanks for all of your help!
Candace

[Robert Carroll]

Candace,

Reforestation is not causing the extinction, it is simply not always helpful in correcting the damage done by deforestation. So reforestation is not evidence of the threat; the fragmentation is the threat, and reforestation just fails to correct the problem. So it's a phenomenon that, while seeming to help, actually doesn't help; despite deforestation's being the problem, the phenomenon of reforestation isn't a cure-all, so these remedial effort are still consistent with a worsening problem.

Robert Carroll

[taylorballou]

Hello,

I originally thought C was the correct answer, but then I thought that reforestation wasn't a "phenomenon," so I chose answer A. I typically think of a phenomenon as something that occurs naturally and is surprising, but this has often caused issues with LSAT questions. How does the LSAT define "phenomenon"?

Thank you,

Taylor

[Francis O'Rourke]

Think of a phenomenon as an occurrence, an experience, or an event. This is the dictionary definition of a phenomenon. Anything that we can observe can be described as a phenomenon.

There is no need to think of phenomenons only as natural phenomenons. After all, that would make the term "natural phenomenon" redundant!

[ScholesFan]

Hi PowerScore,

Quick clarification question on this one...

I assumed that the fragmentation of the forest was the result of the "recent reforestation." Consequently, I ended up choosing A because I assumed that all of the stimulus' discussion of forest fragmentation was in fact evidence of reforestation (which is what answer choice A states).

I'd be grateful for any help on how I could've parsed this out better.

Thanks!
ScholesFan

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Scholes,

"Parsed" is exactly the right word to use here. With that in mind, let's look at that second sentence and see what they did with it:

• "Yet they also claim that, despite recent reforestation, matters continue to worsen, since it is fragmentation of forest rather than reduction of forest size that endangers songbird species."
  
  Note that this sentence is a classic LSAT sentence: full of ideas that don't have to be related. It's really two ideas in one:
  
  1. Yet they also claim that, despite recent reforestation, matters continue to worsen
  2. since it is fragmentation of forest rather than reduction of forest size that endangers songbird species.
  
  The connection point is matters worsening, although it's simply stated that fragmentation is the problem here. This occurs despite reforestation, and nowhere does it say that reforestation is causing the fragmentation. However, they want you to read into that sentence and draw that conclusion, but it's not stated there; instead, two ideas are placed side-by-side and they watch to see what happens.

In answer choice (A), is reforestation really evidence that the threat of extinction still looms? On its face, that seems somewhat counterintuitive. I understand your reading above though, and with that in mind you can see what they did in the second sentence and answer choice (A)—it's a setup of sorts.

Note also, that with (A), that description could apply to any sentence in the stimulus after the first one, and that's not typically what you'd get in a Method-AP answer as it would be too easy.

Thanks!

[OneSeventy2019]

Powerscore,

I eliminated A as an answer choice but via an alternative means then described above.

Do you think it would be fair to eliminate answer choice A because "extinction" is too strong?

The argument only claims that they were 'threatened' and 'matters continue to worsen'.. Meanwhile, choice A claims that the birds 'will continue to be threatened with extinction'.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

That strong language about "extinction" is certainly another strike against answer A, OneSeventy2019! But it may not be too big a stretch to say that if a species is "threatened," the threat is extinction. What other threat is there to a species as a whole, really? The biggest problem with answer A is the one described in our official explanation, which is that the claim in question isn't offered as evidence of anything. It's used to describe a situation that, while true, doesn't fix the problem, and still allows for the threat to exist. That's what "compatible" means - two things that can both be true at the same time.

[gdgz]

This stimulus is so confusing to me. Is there a conclusion?