LSAT Explanation PT 22, S2, Q3: Land developer: By attempting to preserve

LSAT Question Stem

The method the environmentalist uses to object to the land developer's argument is to 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The land developer presents a premise that attempting to preserve endangered species is a waste of money because extinction is the normal fate of species over millions of years. The environmentalist objects to this argument by presenting a counterexample: not spending money on finding a cure for cancer because all humans are eventually mortal. The environmentalist's counterexample serves as a critique of the land developer's argument. The conclusion of the argument is the environmentalist's objection to the land developer's claim.

Now, let's briefly discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Method of Reasoning (MOR) question, which asks us to identify the method the environmentalist uses to object to the land developer's argument.

Let's go through each answer choice:

a) Clarify a dilemma that is embedded in the land developer's argument: The environmentalist does not clarify a dilemma; rather, they present a counterexample to challenge the land developer's reasoning. So, this choice is incorrect.

b) Attack the character of the land developer rather than the position the land developer is taking: The environmentalist does not attack the land developer's character; they criticize the reasoning behind the land developer's argument. So, this choice is incorrect.

c) Show that more evidence is needed to substantiate the land developer's conclusion: The environmentalist does not ask for more evidence; they present a counterexample to question the land developer's reasoning. To better understand this answer choice, let's consider what the environmentalist's argument would look like if they had responded in a way that reflects (C): "Although extinctions are the eventual normal end for all species, it's only proper to call expenditures attempting to delay that fate 'wasted' if the costs outweigh the benefits. It may be true that preserving, even for a short time, certain species will be beneficial while they survive and justify the expenditure. Thus, before you call such spending wasteful, you should consider all the effects the spending will have." Since this is not the environmentalist's response, this choice is incorrect.

d) Show that the land developer's line of reasoning would lead to an unacceptable conclusion if applied to a different situation: This is the correct answer. The environmentalist uses a counterexample (not spending money on finding a cure for cancer because all humans are eventually mortal) to show that the land developer's reasoning, if applied to another situation, would lead to an unacceptable conclusion.

e) Argue that there are problems that money, however judiciously spent, cannot solve: The environmentalist does not argue this point; they focus on critiquing the land developer's reasoning using a counterexample. So, this choice is incorrect.

In summary, the correct answer is (D), as the environmentalist uses a counterexample to show that the land developer's reasoning would lead to an unacceptable conclusion if applied to a different situation.