Necessary AssumptionDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: The Wildlife Commission proposes that for every wetland destroyed by builders, a new one must be built to replace it, claiming this will keep the animals safe.
Conclusion: Requiring replacement habitats for any developed wetlands will ensure that development poses no threat to the species living there.
Reasoning: Constructing replacement habitats ensures there is no net reduction in total wetland area.
Analysis: The argument assumes that a man-made wetland is a perfect substitute for a natural one. It focuses entirely on the quantity of wetlands (no net reduction) while ignoring the quality or biological viability of the replacement. For the conclusion to hold, the replacement habitats must actually be able to support the specific species that were displaced. Look for an answer that bridges this gap by stating that the new habitats are indeed capable of sustaining the wildlife in question.
Conclusion: Requiring replacement habitats for any developed wetlands will ensure that development poses no threat to the species living there.
Reasoning: Constructing replacement habitats ensures there is no net reduction in total wetland area.
Analysis: The argument assumes that a man-made wetland is a perfect substitute for a natural one. It focuses entirely on the quantity of wetlands (no net reduction) while ignoring the quality or biological viability of the replacement. For the conclusion to hold, the replacement habitats must actually be able to support the specific species that were displaced. Look for an answer that bridges this gap by stating that the new habitats are indeed capable of sustaining the wildlife in question.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage7.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument advanced by the Figorian Wildlife Commission depends?
Correct Answer
B
The argument requires that the species in natural wetlands will survive in replacement wetlands. If not, then even with no net loss of wetland area, the species would still be threatened, and the conclusion fails. Negation test: If the indigenous species will not survive in constructed wetlands, then offsetting development does not eliminate the threat to those species; the argument collapses.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal