Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists

This time i disagree on this question. Not on the OA but rather on the question itself.

rarely I saw a must true question that basically repeats the same words of the stimulus.

I agree to train with LSAT questions that are pretty good and tough but not always.

Sometimes ago thare was a PDF from aristotle prep (for free on their website) with a collection of lsat questions suitable for the gmat purpose.

Now is not already available. But I saved it on my pc.If you are interested and you haven't it let me know. I upload it

Why not 'C' be the answer. I hope it will be better if we get a full explanation.

Carcass, which part of the question you disagree with?

OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.

Hi dude

Without the intervention of conservationists. Infer is always something that is completely unstated in the stimulus. As such, infer is just something that you "can" read among the lines of the stimulus.

Hello Carcass, we may not always find infer question choices as something new or completely unstated in the stimulus. Sometimes the infer questions may have multiple premises stated separately and will ask you to establish the relationship in answer choices. The choices may also re-state some of the content from the premises, but correct choice will reflect appropriate relationship. Another example - cause & effect infer questions.

Above specific question stresses a lot on understanding and defining the conditional relationship among few circumstances: Sufficient -> Necessary. Some of the tricky answer choices in this question may look correct but they incorrectly show reversed relationship Necessary -> Sufficient, which cant guaranteed to be true. Hence eliminate. Choice (E) rightly establishes the conditions.

OE: In the first sentence the ecologist claims that without the intervention of conservationists, the squirrel monkeys will become extinct. In other words, the conservationists’ intervention is required for the squirrel monkeys’ survival. This statement yields the following translation: IF squirrel monkeys survive -> conservationists intervene. Likewise, the contrapositive states that IF NO conservationists’ intervention -> squirrel monkeys extinct. Then the ecologist gives us a condition under which the squirrel monkeys will survive: IF large tracts of habitat preserved -> squirrel monkeys survive. The contrapositive then translates as IF squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of habitat NOT preserved. The last sentence is just filler and is of no consequence to the logic of the argument. Stay focused on how the first two statements can be connected through common terms as you evaluate each answer choice for a statement that must be true.

(A) The ecologist only discusses the habitat in question. The food supply or lack thereof in other habitats is outside the scope and the ecologist does not provide enough information to know that this must be true.
(B) This need not necessarily be true. The preservation of the large tract of habitat is one way to ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys. There could be a whole host of other ways that the inter vening conservationists can save the squirrel monkeys that the ecologist never discusses.
(C) The ecologist states that squirrel monkeys flourish when a plentiful supply of insects and fruit is available. The ecologist never states that the squirrel monkeys would die off without this food supply. Choice (C) is going too far.
(D) This answer reverses the logic of the first statement. If the squirrel monkeys survive, it is because the conservationists have intervened. The ecologist never states that intervention alone will guarantee their existence. In fact, the second statement provides an unrelated condition—the preservation of the habitat—that will ensure survival of the squirrel monkeys.
(E) This answer must be correct since the other four are demonstrably wrong. This answer emphasizes the connection between the two formal logic statements, but in the form of the contrapositive. IF conser vationists’ do NOT intervene -> squirrel monkeys extinct -> large tracts of land NOT preserved. Choice (E) is correct and properly removes the common term of “squirrel monkeys extinct” in the contrapositive.

I highly doubt your reasoning for going with E. E cannot be a must true situation as there might be a different group of people other than conservationists, who might be interested in developing the habitat for some other purpose.

Let's analyze this question.

Argument:

- If conservationists don't intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
- They will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them.
- Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of insects and fruit.

Question: Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the ecologist’s statements? i.e. which one of the following can be concluded i.e. which one must be true?

(A) No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.
Not given. All we know is that is that second growth forest contains insects and fruit. We don't if another habitat has insects and fruit too.

(B) At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.
Not given. We can't say how the conservationists WILL intervene. The argument only tells us one way in which they COULD to save the monkeys.

(C) Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
Not given. We know that they flourish when there is plentiful supply of insects and fruit. We do not know whether or not they can survive on something else.

(D) If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.
If conservationists do not intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. If they do intervene, we don't know how they will do so. The argument only gives you one method of how they could save the monkey. We don't know whether they will use this method so we can't say that they will be successful in helping them survive.
Same logic as (B).

(E) Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.
True according to the argument. The argument clearly says two things: Monkeys will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive. They are premises and must be taken to be true. They imply that if conservationists don't intervene, large tracts of second-growth forest will not be preserved for the monkeys. (mind you, they could be preserved for some other animals, but not for the monkeys). If second growth forests could be preserved for these monkeys without conservationists' intervention, then we cannot say that 'If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive.'

Also note that all we are saying is that if conservationists DON'T intervene, forests will certainly NOT be preserved for the monkeys. We are not saying that if the conservationists DO intervene, then second growth forests WILL be preserved for them. Hence, it is consistent with the logic of (B).

Option (E) is correct.

This time i disagree on this question. Not on the OA but rather on the question itself.

rarely I saw a must true question that basically repeats the same words of the stimulus.

I agree to train with LSAT questions that are pretty good and tough but not always.

Sometimes ago thare was a PDF from aristotle prep (for free on their website) with a collection of lsat questions suitable for the gmat purpose.

Now is not already available. But I saved it on my pc.If you are interested and you haven't it let me know. I upload it