Q23 - Columnist: Although much has been learned

[pathosj]

Having narrowed down the choices to (A) and (D), I chose (A) because I felt that (D) was too strong. The stimulus states that "we should try to preserve... species if we have an interest in preserving any..." while (D) states that we should not allow any change to occur in things that are important to us.

I felt that things that we have an interest in are not necessarily important to us. (A) seems to make an assumption explicit and justify the columnist's argument.

[elizabeth.r.casanova]

Hi pathosj! I took PT 61 yesterday and really got tripped up on this problem also. After reexamining this problem today, I think I may be able to clarify why the correct answer is D) and why the other answer choices are wrong. I still feel a little iffy on this problem, so please make additional comments/corrections.

First, we have to realize that this problem asks for a "PRINCIPLE, that most helps to justify." The answer choice, a principle, may or may not be in general terms. Also, the answer choice MUST articulate the main assumption in this argument.

Premise 1: We are not fully aware of how intricate the interrelationships among living organisms are.
Premise 2: Allowing species to die, even those we feel indifferent towards, may reduce/affect the viability of other species.
Conclusion: We need to try to preserve as many species as we can, if we want to preserve any.

Pre-phrase: We are unaware of interrelationship among species, letting a species that we feel indifferent about die could risk the possibility of harm/death of species that we do value, so we should try to keep as many species alive as possible.

General pre-phrased assumption: If we don't know the consequences of something (i.e. letting species we are indifferent about die), which could potentially be bad, we should not allow that that something to happen.

(D) If we allow a change to occur (i.e. allow species that we are indifferent about perish) -> we know change won't harm anything that is important to us (i.e. we have learned that letting the indifferent species die will NOT affect the species that we do care about)
Contrapositive: if we don't know if a change will/won't harm the species that we care about -> we won't let the change occur (i.e. so we will preserve as many species as we can)

Wrong Answers:

(A) I believe this is a premise booster. It is somewhat qualifying the "if we have an interest in preserving any" by pointing to the fact that we do indeed have an interest in preserving certain species. Yet, this does not tie the premise and conclusion together.

(B) Tempting, but is actually going against the argument. This answer choice is saying that we should not act on preserving the maximum number of species, because we don't have all relevant facts taken into account. The argument WANTS us to act (by preserving max # of species) because we don't have all relevant info

(C) We know nothing about the number of species required for flourishing human populations. Also, the argument is not focused just on humans, it includes other species also.

(E) We know nothing about when we should take an action with the best consequences in the immediate future. We are only told about when we shouldn't allow something to occur because we don't know of the consequences.

Hope this helps. Sorry if this doesn't help or is unclear. As I said above, I am still a little shaky on this problem.

[jennifer]

Two questions:

1. what makes A incorrect and D corre t?

[noah]

Great write-up! I made a few edits below

First, we have to realize that this problem asks for a "PRINCIPLE, that most helps to justify." The answer choice, a principle, may or may not be in general terms. Also, the answer choice MUST articulate the main assumption in this argument.

Premise 1: We are not fully aware of how intricate the interrelationships among living organisms are.
Premise 2: Allowing species to die, even those we feel indifferent towards, may reduce/affect the viability of other species.
Conclusion: We need to try to preserve as many species as we can, if we want to preserve any.

Pre-phrase: We are unaware of interrelationship among species, letting a species that we feel indifferent about die could risk the possibility of harm/death of species that we do value, so we should try to keep as many species alive as possible.

General pre-phrased assumption: If we don't know the consequences of something (i.e. letting species we are indifferent about die), which could potentially be bad, we should not allow that that something to happen.

(D) speaks to this assumption of not doing something that might harm something we care about. To put it back in terms of the stimulus - don't mess with the species we don't think we care about, since we're not sure if that will affect the ones we do care about.

Wrong Answers:

(A) is a premise booster of sorts. The argument is about what is true if we we have an interested in preserving some species. We don't need to know that we actually do or do not have that interest - the argument is about what we can say if we do.

(B) Tempting, but is actually going against the argument. This answer choice is saying that we should not act on preserving the maximum number of species, because we don't have all relevant facts taken into account. The argument WANTS us to act (by preserving max # of species) because we don't have all relevant info

(C) We know nothing about the number of species required for flourishing human populations. Also, the argument is not focused just on humans, it includes other species also.

(E) We know nothing about which courses of action will have the best consequences in the immediate future. We are only told about when we should do something (preserve as many species as possible) because we don't know of the consequences of doing otherwise.

[goriano]

Answer choice (D) states

If we should allow a change to occur --> we are assured that change will not jeopardize anything important to us

by the contrapositive,

If we aren't sure that change will not jeopardize anything important to us --> we shouldn't allow a change to occur

I want to know whether anyone else read the word "change" to mean differently. Specifically, the conclusion seems to be advocating FOR change-- being less ignorant of the interrelationships, preserving the maximum number of species (embedded in the conclusion seems to be an assumption we aren't doing this already, or else why would the columnist be making such an argument). While in retrospect I can also see "change" as the opposite of preserving the status quo, I wasn't able to entirely think this through due to the time constraints. I don't have a specific question in mind but was hoping the LSAT geeks could comment on this. Thanks!

[noah]

I want to know whether anyone else read the word "change" to mean differently. Specifically, the conclusion seems to be advocating FOR change-- being less ignorant of the interrelationships, preserving the maximum number of species (embedded in the conclusion seems to be an assumption we aren't doing this already, or else why would the columnist be making such an argument).

I think you've said it right there - you've added in the assumption that the status quo is the not-preservation of animals. It's just as likely that this columnist is advocating for keeping the status quo of not killing organisms. It seems like you're bringing in your outside knowledge of what's going on in the real world.

While in retrospect I can also see "change" as the opposite of preserving the status quo, I wasn't able to entirely think this through due to the time constraints. I don't have a specific question in mind but was hoping the LSAT geeks could comment on this. Thanks!

I don't think you needed to think this through during the test. You should have been able to eliminate all but (A) and (D) pretty easily, and then (A) ends up being a premise booster.

I hope that helps.

And thank you for addressing the LSAT geek community with the proper name!

[js_martin01]

Also take note of the language in answer choice A, which states "it is strongly in our interest to preserve certain plant and animal species. This does not match up with the argument's conclusion that we should try to preserve the maximum number of species. We can reasonably equate maximum with all, if possible, so the language of answer choice A (certain) does not match the logical force of the argument.

[peru_lpz]

The assumption that I created for this question was this: if one is ignorant of what one is indifferent to, then one should try to preserve the maximum. This is assumption is different from "if we do not know the consequence of something, which could be bad, then we should not allow that that something to happen"(Elizabeth). I taught this was a great assumption, and angry that i could not see how it was made.

The part that has me bugged is the "we should not allow that that something to happen, assuming that it was bad". How did this assumption came about? How is allowing or not allowing something to happen similar to preserving? Can someone help me out please?

The core of the argument, I saw it as:
We are ignorant of the interrelationship among species of living organisms, and since allowing species that we are indifferent to "perish" might hinder the survival of other species, we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species .

Assumption: If we are ignorant of what we are indifferent, the we should try to preserve the maximum that we can.

[arigold36]

I too was between A and D, and chose A without really considering how the scope of the conditional in the conclusion related to the argument as a whole (not a wise move...)

BUT - I'm thinking that this question fits into a broader trend I've noticed in LSAT land, specifically regarding the ever important prescriptive "should..."

Though there's certainly much more to it, has anyone else found that generally, if an argument's conclusion contains the word "SHOULD", and none of the premises contain the word "should" - then word "should" must invariably appear somewhere in the answer choice (insofar as the question is looking for an assumption or justifying principle for the argument)?

[tommywallach]

I always get nervous to say something like that definitively. However, it IS fair to say that it would be pretty darn hard to prove a "should" conclusion without a SHOULD in the premises. Or at least a synonym of should...

[mswang7]

Premises: we have learned a lot but still don't know a lot about the interrelationships between organisms. Allowing species to which we are indifferent about to perish might affect species
Concl: we care about so we should try to preserve any many as possible.

A. We want to preserve all species, not only certian
B. One of the premise states we still have a lot to learn and we should still take these actions
C. The reason we should preserve is not for future human populations but for the viability of all species of living organisms
D. This fits
E. A few of the words in the answers are problematic including always, best, immediate future. Overall too strong and the argument did not say this was the best course of action, nor did it speak to the immediate future