Q2 - Despite increasing international efforts

[interestedintacos]

My pre-phrase on this question led me to the correct choice but then I found a problem. The choice is saying animals have been saved due to the establishment of "animal refuges." In order for this choice to weaken the argument we must take "animal refuges" to mean basically creating a refuge within an animal's natural habitat. However, it's obvious that "animal refuge" could also mean something set up for endangered animals outside of their natural environment. If it means the latter then the choice would be just like choice E and would not at all weaken the argument.

On the other hand, choice A suggests that at the current point in time the preservation of habitats is more possible than ever before. Given the potential fault of choice B, I actually went with this choice because it suggests that the previous record of increased rate of extinction may in fact be dented (or some positive results could happen), and thus the efforts today wouldn't be a waste, if there is an advance in the protection of habitats. It would be a very weak strengthener--it would need more steps to strongly strengthen the argument, but sometimes correct strengtheners are fairly weak, especially if a more attractive answer choice is flawed.

After all, it could mean that before, and during the increased efforts to protect the natural habitats, the preservation of the habitats was fairly impossible, and now, learning that scientists have better methods than ever before, it could be a thousand times better, and could have far reaching effects on the rate of extinction. That's left open by the answer choice. Again, it could be that the increase was tiny and that therefore this answer choice has no effect, but there's at least a chance for an effect.

Trust me, I pre-phrased the clear flaw here--just because the rate of extinction goes up certainly doesn't mean the "efforts are wasted." Clearly the correct choice will say that some species have been saved by protecting natural habitats--so even with an increasing rate the efforts aren't a waste because it's making some sort of dent. But again, as the test makers have done many times, they tried to make things a little more difficult by swapping terms, and an "animal refuge" by no means has to be in the animals' natural habitat. "Protecting natural habitats" and establishing "animal refuges" is a poor match. That sort of poor match could be exploited in a question at a higher level of difficulty, so why do the test makers feel fine inserting it into a question at a lower level of difficulty? What is the best way to avoid messing up on questions like this? Should one not be careful to precisely divide between terms on easy questions, but try getting more careful where there may be harder questions?

A necessary assumption question could easily be like this:

"The rate of extinction among endangered species is growing higher every year, and these species are an important part of the Earth. The best way to lower the rate of extinction is by protecting the species' natural environments. Therefore, if we want to take the most ideal route, we ought to establish wildlife refuges."

Correct answer choice:
"At least some wildlife refuges protect species natural environments"

By no means is it a given that "wildlife refuges" means natural environments. So what should we do in a situation like this? Should we try not to be precise? Should we not try to avoid making any assumptions?

[noah]

I'm afraid my answer is simpler than you'll like: work wrong-to-right.

Here's how I solved this:

It's a weakener - so let's find the core.

Conclusion: intl efforts to protect nat. habitats wasted.

Premise: the rate at which species go extinct continues to rise.

Gap: that's a strong conclusion! Wasted? Perhaps they helped a bit, and lowered the rate from what it would have been without the efforts.

Working wrong-to-right:

(A) defer

(B) defer

(C) can be eliminated. We don't need more numbers showing that lots of animals go extinct. Have the efforts been wasted?

(D) is out of scope - who's talking about tourism?

(E) is also irrelevant. Who cares what programs have been proposed?

Back to (A) and (B).

(A) seems problematic in that the scientists are better able to preserve the habitat, but are they doing it? And, does preserving the habitat mean fewer species go extinct. Actually, we already know that there are efforts in this direction - we can assume there is some ability already. Seems like a premise booster.

(B) tells us that there are some species that are saved because of some efforts - seems like this is addressing our gap. But, it's not perfect. It switches from "natural habitats" to "refuges," - is creating an animal refuge part of the efforts to protect the natural habitats? - but we can just as easily assume that refuges are part of natural habitats as we can assume that they're not. We want the best answer, (B) is it.

[gracesingsong]

I'm still not clearly understanding why (B) is the correct answer.
The question stem states "increasing international efforts to protect", which means that the efforts are specifically focused on "protect(ing) the natural habitats", not necessarily saving endangered species, though we may assume that saving the species is the ultimate goal.
Thus, to weaken the argument that the "efforts are wasted", we need to show that efforts "to protect the natural habitats" are not necessarily wasted, which would be closer to (A), which talks about scientists now having more ability to preserve the habitats, than (B), which focuses more on saving near extinct animals, and which even seems as though it is out of scope, since it talks about "animal refuges" - not natural habitats.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me clarify this!
Thanks!

[Ibrahim.diallo]

I think it is fair to say "refuge" is essentially the same thing as "habitat". B is saying there are species that would have been wiped out had it not been for the establishment of the "refuges" or habitat. I googled refuge and here is what you get - "a condition of being safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble", it is safe to say that's the same function of a habitat.

[tommywallach]

Agreed.

[bswise2]

I am confused by this for the same reason as gracesingsong

Firstly, I would understand refugees being within the realm of habitats if the stimulus did not specify natural habitats. An animal refugee is not a natural habitat. They are man-made sanctuaries that artificially mimic natural habitats. I rendered this answer choice irrelevant because I figured that it was not even talking about the same subject matter.

Second, the international efforts are aimed at protecting the natural habitats of endangered species. This does not necessarily mean these efforts are also trying to prevent the extinction rate from increasing. I mean, in the real world, it is most likely the case that this is also the goal, but in LSAT world, I just don't see how we can make that assumption. What if these efforts were to satisfy the hippie/vegan population so that they think the government is prioritizing the protection of these natural habitats? Or what if their efforts were because there is some new law that requires the protection of these habitats? There could be a number of (yes, crazy yet) sufficient reasons for why they are protecting the natural habitats of these species that have nothing to do with the extinction rate. If the two concepts (protecting natural habitats and preventing extinction from increasing) were to be related in terms of our argument, wouldn't the first statement have to say "Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species in order to maintain or decrease the extinction rate, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise"?

Any insight would be appreciated. I know I am missing something here.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think it's really just the internal logic of saying, "Despite X having been done, Y happened."

In order for there to be a contrast there to justify the use of 'despite', we have to assume that 'X was done in order to prevent Y from happening'.

If I say, "Despite the fact that Mary took the bus to work today, the Cleveland Cavaliers have a game tonight", it just doesn't make any sense.

Whereas if we say, "Despite the fact that a terrible blizzard has covered Ohio in snow, the Cavs have a game tonight", it makes sense. The person saying that sentence expected that a terrible blizzard would have an effect on whether the Cavs have a game tonight.

Similarly, we can infer that the author is suggesting that the efforts to preserve natural habitats were INTENDED to save endangered species.

Otherwise, it's a non sequitur to bring up the rate of extinction in the second half of that sentence.

I'm with you in not loving this question, but that's how I'd expect LSAC to defend it.

[BensonC202]

I think it's really just the internal logic of saying, "Despite X having been done, Y happened."

In order for there to be a contrast there to justify the use of 'despite', we have to assume that 'X was done in order to prevent Y from happening'.

If I say, "Despite the fact that Mary took the bus to work today, the Cleveland Cavaliers have a game tonight", it just doesn't make any sense.

Whereas if we say, "Despite the fact that a terrible blizzard has covered Ohio in snow, the Cavs have a game tonight", it makes sense. The person saying that sentence expected that a terrible blizzard would have an effect on whether the Cavs have a game tonight.

Similarly, we can infer that the author is suggesting that the efforts to preserve natural habitats were INTENDED to save endangered species.

Otherwise, it's a non sequitur to bring up the rate of extinction in the second half of that sentence.

I'm with you in not loving this question, but that's how I'd expect LSAC to defend it.

I love the way you put it - " Despite X having been done, Y happened "

IF we say that Despite the fact that LeBron James left Cavs, Kevin loves still has been attempting to lead Cavs to the Eastern conferences.

Then we assume that LBJ would have an effect on whether Kevin loves has been attempting to leads Cavs to the Eastern conferences.

But then if we conclude that If Kevin loves has not been attempting to leads Cavs to the Eastern conferences, then LBJ's leaving does not have the effect on it.

We must assume that not a single degree of the attempt can be proved from Kevin love to lead Cavs resulting from the leave of LBJ right ?

Or if we conclude that Since Cavs failed to be in the Eastern conferences, so LBJ's leave does not motivate Kevin Love's attempt to lead.

Then we must assume that If you shows 100% degree of attempt, one must be able to achieve the thing whom attempts to fulfill.

Thank you Patrick, you are like my Obi-won.

Always inspire me to the new path unshadowed by the darkness, and the light from the new path makes me feel alive when I am hopeless and depressed resulting from fail to find a new way out.