#6 - Concept Ref., Must, Author's Perspective, Subj. Persp.

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lathlee]

I thought It's D or E are correct. Now the answer sheet from Powerscore says this Q is CR, MUST, AP, SP. how be that correct? Maybe I don't have the all the relevant information, missing some critical information to evaluate entire scope.

[Adam Tyson]

This passage is fascinating to me, lathlee, largely because the view it presents is not typical of the mostly liberal, "politically correct" bias that we tend to see on the LSAT. This passage is generally saying "don't worry so much about the rain forests, folks!" It even defends commercial plantations in rain forests, which have lower species diversity, as being beneficial to the forests - how odd for this test! Perhaps that is what threw you off - you expected the passage to be supportive of conservation and against commercial exploitation of rain forests? That would be entirely reasonable to expect, but we cannot let our preconceived notions about the inherent biases on this test blind us to what's actually being presented.

To answer your question, let's break it down for those who might not understand what those abbreviations mean:

CR: Concept Reference. That means we are looking for something about a general idea in the passage, rather than a specific detail
MUST: Must Be True. We are looking for something that follows directly from the facts in the passage. Most RC questions fall into this broad category, as opposed to Strengthen or Weaken.
AP: Author Perspective. That means we want to give consideration to the viewpoint of the author as we attempt to answer this question (because it is about the author making statements about the critics)
SP: Subject Perspective. That means we also need to consider the viewpoint of one of the subjects of the passage, and not just that of the author. In this case, that subject is the critics of commercial plantations.

To simplify this question, it is asking "with which of the following statements would the author not disagree?"

Okay, that wasn't so simple. Let's make it simpler.

"These answers are about the critics. The author would probably nod in agreement with which one of them?"

Let's prephrase. The author thinks the critics of commercial plantations are wrong. Why? Because

since plantations are designed to produce large quantities of wood and wood pulp, they reduce the economic pressure on true forests, increasing the latter’s capacity to support biodiversity

Let's go through the answers from the bottom up:

Answer E: They (the critics) demonstrate a broad understanding? No no no, they are wrong, not right!
Answer D: They possess an adequate understanding? Again no - we want "they are wrong"
Answer C: They are well versed? Same problem. We want something that reflects that the author thinks they are wrong, because those plantations are good for biodiversity by reducing pressure on true forests.
Answer B: They don't understand? Now we are getting somewhere, but the thing they don't understand isn't about medical potential but about supporting biodiversity through reduced economic pressure
Answer A: They should consider the relationship more carefully? Bingo! If they did, they might see that plantations HELP rain forests rather than hurting them!

I hope that sheds sufficient light through the canopy for you, lathlee! What a departure from the norm this passage is!