LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#24313
Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

Lydia argues that fishing companies should pay for vets for injured birds caused by the fishing companies’ nets. Jonathan makes no judgment about the fishing companies’ involvement but disagrees with helping the birds at all because he claims it is inhumane.

Answer choice (A): Jonathan does not personally attack Lydia and he does give an argument against her proposal – that of the inhumane nature of treatment.

Answer choice (B): Jonathan never questions Lydia’s motives in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): This is too sweeping. Jonathan discourages interference with injured birds but mentions nothing about general interference in other types of cases.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Jonathan attempts to discredit Lydia’s entire proposal by focusing only on the “most seriously injured” birds. He makes no mention of the effect her proposal would have on some of the less injured birds.

Answer choice (E): Jonathan does not mention Lydia’s feelings about the birds at all. He doesn’t evade, he directly attacks.
 karen_k
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Sep 24, 2015
|
#20520
Hi,

I originally picked C as my answer. How exactly are we supposed to know that the most seriously injured birds are the ones that treatment would serve least well? I know Jonathan hints that the most seriously injured can no longer live in the wild, but I'm confused as to how that all ties together. Thank you!
 Ladan Soleimani
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: Oct 08, 2015
|
#20528
Hi Karen!

Jonathan does not question ever interfering with wildlife. He is only refuting interfering in this case, when it would mean that the wildlife could no longer live in the wild, which means that answer choice (C) is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Jonathan gives us the reason why the most seriously injured birds are the ones the proposal serves the least. Even after treatment these bird would not be well enough to survive in the wild. This is his entire reason for refuting the proposal. Lets assume that this is true. What about non seriously injured birds? Surely there are some birds that could be treated by veterinary medicine and released back into the wild. Jonathan is only addressing a small portion of the animals that could be helped, those that are the most seriously hurt. He is trying to refute her entire proposal by focusing on the group of birds that wouldn't benefit and ignoring those that could.

I hope that helps,
Ladan
 karen_k
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Sep 24, 2015
|
#20529
Hi Ladan,

Thank you for clearing that up!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.