to the top

#7 - X: Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and

LSAT Legend
Posts: 6204
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 2,891

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (A)

Both speakers would agree with answer choices (C) and (D), so both are incorrect. Answer choice (B) is factual in nature, and once again the argument is moral in nature. Thus, answer choice (B) is incorrect.
LSAT Leader
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:20 am
Points: 28

Could you elaborate on the stimulus and answer choices more? Seems like there is at least one shell game going on between "living things," "plants," and "nonhuman."
thank you.
Francis O'Rourke
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Points: 455

Speaker X believes that we should preserve our natural resources, if we want the possible benefits of plants in the future.

Speaker Y takes offense to the first speaker's description of plats as our "resources", alleges that we should attempt to preserve all living species because they deserve to live, and directly says that the good a living organism can give us is not a condition for deciding whether they should be preserved.

Speaker X may agree that all living organisms deserve to live, but we do not have enough information on their position to know either way.

Choice (A) describes the final objection that Speaker Y made, which was that benefits from a living organism (plants are living organisms) is not a sufficient condition for deciding whether it should be preserved.
LSAT Apprentice
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:13 pm
Points: 7

Could you explain answer choice B in more detail? I thought Person Y would agree while Person X would disagree. I don't understand how it's a factual statement.
James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 389

Hi SA,

The issue with answer choice (B) is that the economic issue raised in it are not addressed at all by the two speakers. Instead, speaker X is saying that possible benefit to humanity from chemicals contained within plant species is reason enough to make attempts to prevent their extinction, while speaker Y claims this isn't a good reason, and that these species should be conserved because they, as living things, have a right to continue to survive as a species. So the fundamental disagreement between the two is what constitutes a good reason to preserve species, not an economic viability argument like (B) suggests.

Hope this clears things up!