Q12 - In a national park located on an island

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
Expected: Bringing a predator to an island would thin out the moose herd
Unexpected: Despite thriving predators, the mooses (meece?) also thrived (throve?)

Answer Anticipation:
I have no idea what the specific answer is going to be, but it has to in some way explain how wolves/a predator would cause the mooser herd to have an easier time of it.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If the wolves were driving out other predators, this could serve as an answer. However, it says they're preventing other predators from moving in, which means these predators were never on the island to begin with. As such, it doesn't explain why the moose population increased.

(B) Common trap! This answer aligns with the situation, but it doesn't explain why it's happening. The purpose of these questions is to explain, so this answer falls short.

(C) Here we go! The wolves kill the Patient Zeros of the moose plague. It's a bloody, bloody quarantine. With the plague-moose dead, the healthy moose could stay healthy and thus increase their population.

(D) Notice they placed this answer right after the answer that brought up sick moose! They're trying to get you to think that information you read in the last answer was provided by the stimulus. Don't fall for it. This answer doesn't explain how the wolf/moose population came about.

(E) Out of scope. The relevant information would be about the moose that could breed, since those are the ones that need to be thinned out to control the herd.

Takeaway/Pattern:
While it's hard to predict exactly what form the answer to an Explain question will take, you can generally prephrase what it will do. If you have a clear idea of what unexpected phenomenon you're trying to explain, you'll be much better off analyzing the answers.

The LSAT will also write trap answers that play off of information presented in other answers instead of the stimulus, so be careful!

#officialexplanation

[NicoleK891]

I had a difficult time with this one. I ended up choosing (A) because (C) just didn't seem to explain the growth of the moose population well enough. Sure the wolves might kill moose weakened by diseases, but it doesn't say that they ONLY or PRIMARILY kill the moose weakened by diseases. Isn't it possible that the wolves were killing off the entire herd and that those weakened with diseases just so happened to be among the victims? I just don't understand how we're supposed to assume from this answer that the wolves leave enough un-diseased moose alive to grow the herd when the answer never says that they specifically target the diseased ones or are more likely to kill diseased moose as opposed to un-diseases ones.

[YudeS218]

I was down to A and C, and finally chose A because I found out that C was not right.

C only says that weakened moose were killed. However, it might be irrelevant. What if the disease here is only a minor one, one might let moose uncomfortable, but will not lead to their death?

What we need to explain is that although the wolves prospered, the moose herd continued to grow. Only the number, instead of the general happiness (which might be severely affected by the disease mentioned in C), matters here.

Even wolves never successfully kill any infected moose, and these diseases have spread to all other moose, so what? the herd may continue to grow in number.