#15 - For the condor to survive in the wild, its breeding

[Adam Tyson]

If it got you to the right answer, it's acceptable, LSAT2018! That said, I think it is reasonable to link the first and second sentence conditionally. Otherwise, you have to posit an increase in the breeding population with no increase in the total population. Maybe getting the celibate birds to get with the program? Convincing the loners to go to the prom and find a mate? Don't overthink that, though. If we need more breeding birds, we probably need more birds that live to breeding age. To get that, then according to the stimulus we need most of the eggs to hatch. Not just more of them, but most of them.

You're right that "more breeding birds" doesn't absolutely require more total birds, but it's not that big a leap, so don't be afraid to take it. Only worry about it if that either gets you no decent answers or more than one, and then you can use that detail to separate the final losers from the ultimate contender.

Good luck!

[blade21cn]

This is a Most Strongly Supported question. I would normally think of using formal logic in Must Be True questions. So which part in the logic chain makes the Test Maker think it's not 100% provable and thus not use a MBT question stem, but a MSS question stem instead? Or is this a pattern, another trick the Test Maker uses to further confuse us?

[Zach Foreman]

Blade,
Powerscore does not have a MSS question type. This its classified as MBT. The particular wording is not as important as the fact that the stimulus "points to" or supports the correct answer. Recall the four boxes connected with arrows from Lesson 1 of the FL class or the LR bible. Here, the stimulus and answer choice are connected by a downward arrow and that makes it first family "helper".
Since we have sufficient/necessary reasoning, it is reasonable to put those together and prephrase a very limited answer.

[abutz]

I am confused with when to use the contrapositive to answer the question, and when not to. If you compare this question with this question (#25 - Essayist: Every contract negotiator has been lied to), can you please explain how the contrapositive in the contract negotiator / lying question cannot be used for the answer, and how this contrapositive can be used? Thank you so much!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi abutz,

The basic answer to your question is that, in any Must Be True question (including ones like this, a Most Strongly Supported form of Must Be True question), a contrapositive might (but doesn't necessarily have to) be used to derive the correct answer. That is because a contrapositive is a valid inference from an original conditional statement. As such, a contrapositive is always something that "must be true."

But, and here's the key to your question, sometimes a particular contrapositive isn't the only thing that can be inferred from a set of conditional statements. Sometimes there are other inferences that are possible (a chain relationship, for example). The contract negotiator question is a perfect example of that. Sure, there were lots of contrapositive inferences in that question. But there was also a very long chain of conditional statements that could be created from the three different conditionals in that stimulus. So there, they happened to test the chain inference rather than the contrapositive inference.

Long story short, be flexible: when multiple inferences are possible (e.g., chains in addition to contrapositives), you have to keep an eye out for the possibility that the answer choice might not utilize the contrapositive.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Kelly R]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused by this one, as the language used in the stimulus indicates that the condors are unlikely to survive unless MOST of their eggs hatch, something that is unlikely to occur in the wild. Answer D only indicates that more eggs than currently hatch must hatch for the condor to survive, but this doesn't seem to suggest that most eggs will hatch (as more eggs could conceivably hatch than presently do without most eggs hatching). I selected answer choice A, which seemed to suggest that if the condors remain in the wild, they will not survive (because it is unlikely that enough of their eggs will hatch in the wild without breeding intervention, precipitating eventual extinction). I think my error might have been in assuming that this answer choice was only referring to condors that remain in the wild, when it seems like this answer could still include those condors that are taken into captivity and supported throughout the egg-hatching process. If this is true, then it wouldn't seem to be the case that we can absolutely assume that condors will become extinct in the wild, since some of those condors released back into the wild could have been aided in captivity. Does this sound right? Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kelly!

You are correct that the stimulus tells us that if the number of condors is going to increase, most of their eggs have to hatch. The fact that it's unlikely for most eggs to hatch in the wild suggests to us that, currently, most condor eggs do not hatch in the wild. That means that its necessary for more condor eggs to hatch if the species is going to survive in the wild. You are right that saying more eggs must hatch is not the same as saying that most eggs will hatch. But it still must be true that more eggs must hatch if we're going to get to that most eggs hatching threshold. Notice that answer choice (D) does not say that if more eggs hatch, condors will survive in the wild. It simply says that if more eggs do NOT hatch, then the condors will NOT survive in the wild. That indicates that more eggs hatching is necessary (but not sufficient) for the survival of the condors in the wild. Which, again, if we need most of their eggs to hatch (and most of their eggs aren't currently hatching), then we definitely need more of their eggs to hatch.

For answer choice (A), you are correct in your analysis that breeding the birds in captivity and releasing them to the wild could still result in condors living in the wild, even though they needed some help to do so.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[chris12]

I initially crossed out D as not even being a contender: "If more condor eggs do not hatch, the condor species will not survive in the wild." I eliminated it because of the word "more."

The way I was thinking about it was purely nominally, not in relation to the amount of eggs that were hatched previously. Say, for instance, two more eggs hatch tomorrow and that's it. Technically "more" eggs have hatched, but the condor will still go extinct.

For instance, someone might add "more" salt to a dish. This additional salt might just be a pinch in relation the the tablespoon they used before. Although it is less salt than they previously used, they are still adding more salt in total. Likewise, if only two more eggs hatch, technically more eggs have hatched and the condor can still go extinct.

Am I just overthinking that? Can we assume whenever we see the term "more" it should be used in relation to the amount previously stated?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Chris!

Careful with your conditional logic here. You are correct that even if more condor eggs hatch, the species could still go extinct. Having more condor eggs hatching is not sufficient to save the species. But more eggs hatching is necessary to save the species.

Look at Francis's diagram above:

We can combine these statements into the following: If the condor survives, the breading population must increase, and if the population increases, more of the eggs must hatch.
Condor survives breading pop increases more eggs hatch
Choice (D) simply states the end result of more eggs not hatching: If more eggs don't hatch, the breading population will not increase, so the Condor will not survive.
more eggs do not hatch breading pop does not increases Condor does not survive

Answer choice (D) doesn't say that if more condor eggs hatch, then the species will not go extinct. It says that if more condor eggs do NOT hatch, then the species WILL go extinct. More eggs hatching is necessary to the survival of the species, even though it is not sufficient to ensure the condors will not still go extinct.

Always be careful with conditional statements to make sure you are interpreting them correctly. It's important to correctly identify which condition is sufficient and which is necessary--and it's easy to confuse the two!

Also be sure to check out my earlier post just above yours for more of a discussion about why we can prove we need "more" eggs to hatch based on statements that tell us we need "most" eggs to hatch.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey