PT39 LR Q17

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar

Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:23 pm

PT39 LR Q17

Postby Charlie.Home » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:39 pm

I searched around for a good answer to this question, and couldn't find a clear one. Can anyone help explain it to me? Question is from PT39 LR Q17 (sorry I don't know which LR section it is from). I'll leave the correct answer off the post for those whom want to solve it, PM me if you want the answer.
Last edited by Charlie.Home on Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT39 LR Q17

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:34 pm

We're looking for a sufficient assumption that guarantees the conclusion stated in the stimulus. The conclusion of the stimulus is that systematic attempts by human beings to prevent or control forest fires are ill-advised and shortsighted. So answer choice B) completely fills in the gap left by the argument since it says that the ONLY legit reason to intervene is to protect forests and their ecosystems. The stimulus is basically saying that humans should leave forest fires alone and not try to prevent or control them because it's a natural phenomenon that facilitates positive effects for many forest ie) prevents an overabundance of insects. Further, the stim says that forest fires are required for many forests to flourish; however, if the forests and their ecosystems are in apparent danger of being destroyed then that would warrant human intervention to control or prevent the forest fires from doing so -- but that would be the ONLY reason to do so. Hope this helps!

Edit: You can't post full questions so make sure you edit that out

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 13 guests