Bunuel
Wildlife management experts should not interfere with the natural habitats of creatures in the wild, because manipulating the environment to make it easier for an endangered species to survive in a habitat invariably makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive in that habitat.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to consider that wildlife management experts probably know best how to facilitate the survival of an endangered species in a habitat
(B) fails to recognize that a nonendangered species can easily become an endangered species
(C) overlooks the possibility that saving an endangered species in a habitat is incompatible with preserving the overall diversity of species in that habitat
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that the survival of each endangered species is equally important to the health of the environment
(E) takes for granted that preserving a currently endangered species in a habitat does not have higher priority than preserving species in that habitat that are not endangered
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
One reason why I’m well-suited to the LSAT is that I get offended any time anybody tells me what I should, or should not, do. Lucky for me, I’m even offended when someone tells
someone else what to do. Getting pissed is a good thing on the LSAT. It means you’re paying attention.
Here, I’m pissed on behalf of the wildlife management experts because some asshole is telling them that they “should not interfere” with the natural habitats of wild creatures, even to help endangered species survive. What’s the evidence for this unsolicited recommendation? Well, says the asshole, “manipulating the environment…invariably makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive.”
Well guess what, dick? Maybe we don’t care about nonendangered species. Maybe we know that our efforts to save the Bengal Tiger are necessarily going to imperil some nonendangered bunny rabbits. Maybe we’re
glad about that, because we like it when bunnies suffer. Did you ever think about that?
A) This is a trap. Just because the wildlife experts are, um,
experts does not mean that it’s impossible for a nonexpert to make a logical recommendation. The problem with the recommendation isn’t that it was made by a nonexpert, but that it fails to consider the possibility that we don’t give a damn about the bunnies.
B) No, the argument definitely doesn’t do this. In fact, if it were true that nonendangered species can easily become endangered, it would actually
strengthen the argument. We’re looking for a weakener.
C) Same explanation as B.
D) Nah, the argument wasn’t about one endangered species vs.
another endangered species. It was actually about endangered vs. nonendangered species. This answer choice misunderstands the argument.
E) Yep. The argument seems to have presumed that hordes of dirty little bunnies are just as important to us as the glorious Bengal Tiger. That might not be a fair assumption to make.
Our answer is E.