Q13 - Some ornithologists believe that many species

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Some bird scientists (word of the day!) believe this one thing is a problem. There have been some fixes, but they still believe there's a problem (you just can't make a bird scientist happy) because the way the fix has happened doesn't actually address the underlying problem.

Answer Anticipation:
Really interesting Determine the Function question! Yes, we're nerds here.

I was 100% expecting this argument to turn away from what Dr. Bird believes because the author commonly offers a counterpoint to what ""some people"" believe. Here, though, despite the pivot, the author never hops in to rebut the bird men; she's presenting their argument.

The statement in question here is part of the pivot. A problem is identified. The statement in question seems to suggest the problem is being fixed, but information is then given to show that the attempted fix doesn't really get to the problem. The correct answer should reflect that it's an attempted solution that is shown to be ineffective.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Since deforestation was presented as the problem, a statement about reforestation wouldn't serve as evidence that the problem would persist. The rest of the argument after this statement serves as evidence for why, despite the reforestation, there's still a problem.

(B) The ornithologists don't reject the claim; they reject that it will fix the underlying issue affecting birds. Additionally, the bird brains don't use the population to prove deforestation; they use deforestation to explain population.

(C) This is absolutely not a first-pass pick, but there's nothing I can use to rule this answer out. While the reforestation cuts against the initial statement of the problem, context is given that shows how reforestation could happen while the problem persists; in other words, reforestation is compatible with the problem worsening. After ruling out the rest, I'd settle on this answer.

(D) The argument doesn't mention the predator habitats, just the ease with which they can hunt birds in open spaces and corridors. Since the argument doesn't talk about something in this answer choice, we can safely rule it out.

(E) Out of scope. The argument is about the birds, not the predators; there certainly isn't any mention of the predators facing extinction.

Takeaway/Pattern:
The LSAT is really good at coming up with abstract answers that are technically correct but sound bad. Only rule something out if you can give a specific reason why it's wrong.

#officialexplanation