Q8 - X: Since many chemicals useful

[kiwistory]

According to the answer sheet, the answer is C) The use of rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will not itself render those species extinct.

Using the Eliminate the Alternatives method, I can definitely see why this could be an answer. However, I am wondering why choice A) Medicine would now be more advanced than it is if there had been a serious conservation policy in the past
is not an assumption made by the author.

The author states that "Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive from rare or endangered plant species, it is likely that many plant species that are now extinct could have provided us with substances that would have been a boon to humanity" and "... we must make more serious efforts to preserve for all time our natural resources".

Wouldn't the bolded phrases indicate A? Other than reversing the answer given in A to see if it'd harm the conclusion, are there any other way of understanding why A is not the answer?

Thanks!

edit: could it be that A is a simply a paraphrase of the first quote , "Since many chemicals useful for agriculture and medicine derive from rare or endangered plant species, it is likely that many plant species that are now extinct could have provided us with substances that would have been a boon to humanity" and therefore, NOT an assumption?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

(A) is a very attractive answer -- at first glance, much more attractive than (C)!

One thing to keep in mind (and I often think about this issue when down to two choices on an assumption question) is that this is a necessary assumption question. "Relies on" tells us that the answer is something that MUST be true if the argument is to be sound.

If we think about (A) as "would it help make the argument more complete?" well, yes, absolutely it would make the argument more complete.

But is (A) required for the argument to be sound? No.

The argument stated that extinct species could have provided us with substances that would benefit society. This is being used as evidence to show we should preserve our natural resources.

Notice that (A) switches the "could" to "would." The point of the original premise wasn't that now extinct species would have definitely yielded advancements, but rather that these extinct species would have provided possibilities. Therefore, (A) isn't required in order to use this premise to validate the conclusion.

Also notice that medicine is only one of the ways in which the now extinct species could have been a benefit to society (agriculture is another way that is mentioned). Again, in order to use the premise in the argument to validate the conclusion in the argument, must it be true that there would have been advancements specifically in medicine? Not necessarily.

Hope that is helpful! I'll be happy to follow up if you have any further questions.

[gplaya123]

So what does exactly C say?

Also, why isn't it E?
Because if you negate E, which says none of the species were saved through human efforts, doesn't it destroy the argument, that
we are actually going to be able to save some plants?

[ohthatpatrick]

In general terms, X has a plan.

Plan: let's make serious efforts to preserve all our rare and endangered plant species
Goal: ensuring that potentially useful chemicals derived from these endangered species will be available in the future.

When authors have a plan to achieve a certain goal, LSAT loves to test us on possible ways the plan could backfire.

Remember on Necessary Assumption that the correct answer, when negated, would severely cripple the argument.

If you negate (C), it says:
Using rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will itself render those species extinct.

Backfire! This crushes X's plan. By following X's plan, we would ruin X's goal of keeping these endangered species alive.

This answer would be SUPER hard to predict. It's important that when you're reading Necessary Assumption answer choices, you consider using the Negation Test, particularly when the answer choice says something phrased negatively.

"Doing X will NOT itself cause Y"
"It is NOT the case that ____"
"There is NOT some other possibility besides what the author considered"

These answers are hard to understand as written. But when you negate them by simply removing the negative word, you can more easily judge whether they become total dealbreakers for the argument.

(E) is guilty of the classic "extreme language" trap in Necessary Assumption. The author doesn't need to assume that few, if any species have been saved.

The author is definitely claiming/assuming that MANY species have not been saved. (MANY = "some" ... at least one)

(E), meanwhile, is accusing the author of claiming/assuming that MOST species have not been saved.

It could be true that 60% of endangered species have been saved, while 40% haven't been. That would be enough for this author to still say "MANY species could have been saved".

But that doesn't mean that FEW, IF ANY have been saved.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

[deedubbew]

What if serious efforts to preserve plants makes these plants no longer endangered? Then answer choice C will not longer apply. Therefore, the statement in C would not longer be a necessary assumption to reach the conclusion.

In general terms, X has a plan.

Plan: let's make serious efforts to preserve all our rare and endangered plant species
Goal: ensuring that potentially useful chemicals derived from these endangered species will be available in the future.

When authors have a plan to achieve a certain goal, LSAT loves to test us on possible ways the plan could backfire.

Remember on Necessary Assumption that the correct answer, when negated, would severely cripple the argument.

If you negate (C), it says:
Using rare and endangered plant species as a source for chemicals will itself render those species extinct.

Backfire! This crushes X's plan. By following X's plan, we would ruin X's goal of keeping these endangered species alive.

This answer would be SUPER hard to predict. It's important that when you're reading Necessary Assumption answer choices, you consider using the Negation Test, particularly when the answer choice says something phrased negatively.

"Doing X will NOT itself cause Y"
"It is NOT the case that ____"
"There is NOT some other possibility besides what the author considered"

These answers are hard to understand as written. But when you negate them by simply removing the negative word, you can more easily judge whether they become total dealbreakers for the argument.

(E) is guilty of the classic "extreme language" trap in Necessary Assumption. The author doesn't need to assume that few, if any species have been saved.

The author is definitely claiming/assuming that MANY species have not been saved. (MANY = "some" ... at least one)

(E), meanwhile, is accusing the author of claiming/assuming that MOST species have not been saved.

It could be true that 60% of endangered species have been saved, while 40% haven't been. That would be enough for this author to still say "MANY species could have been saved".

But that doesn't mean that FEW, IF ANY have been saved.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

[WaltGrace1983]

What if serious efforts to preserve plants makes these plants no longer endangered? Then answer choice C will not longer apply. Therefore, the statement in C would not longer be a necessary assumption to reach the conclusion.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the idea of being "endangered" really has much to do with the core. The author is merely asserting that IF we want to have chemicals from plants be available, THEN we should preserve our natural resources.

While I know that the first sentence is saying that we get many chemicals from rare and endangered plants, I think this is just setting us up for the core and, thus, is acting as plain background information.

Would that be correct?

In addition, I wanted to add some analysis on (A) and (E). For (E), we are only talking about the future so what has happened in the past has absolutely no relevance to the point. For (A), we could make the same point.

[ohthatpatrick]

To be frank, I find this question really weird. There’s not really an obvious core to me.

The first sentence contains its own argument:
Lots of useful chemicals derive from rare/endangered plants "”> extinct plants could have helped

From that jumping off point (that subsidiary conclusion) we get the author’s final conclusion:
IF we want to ensure chemicals are available, THEN make efforts to preserve

If I were really being technical/normal is setting out the core, we would get:

extinct plants likely could have helped
+
we want to ensure we can have helpful chemicals in the future
==========
make more serious efforts to preserve our natural resources


In reality, the correct answer (C) doesn’t seem to attack the gaps between the evidence and the conclusion.

And negating answer (C) doesn’t actually weaken the conclusion (to my mind).

Negated (C): using rare plants for chemicals will render them extinct

Author: okaaaay, but what does that have to do with whether we should make serious efforts to preserve our natural resources.

The best way, for my money, to get this question right (and other Necessary Assumption questions with weird gaps and hard to predict answers) is just to ask yourself, "is this safely within the thought bubble of what the author told us"?

(A) Too certain/specific. The author only said we LIKELY would have reaped benefits from now-extinct plants, and he doesn’t specify what those benefits would be (just says they would have been a "˜boon to humanity’).

(B) Too extreme/broad. The author’s statements did not convince me that he believes that "sharks, worms, bacteria, viruses, etc. ALL exist to serve humankind"

(C) Yeah, I’d say the author believes this. He’s encouraging preservation of plants for the sake of being able to make helpful chemicals from these plants. He definitely doesn’t seem to be thinking that making the chemicals would eradicate the plants. He’s optimistically thinking we could SAVE plants from being extinct so that we can CONTINUE to use them for helpful chemicals. If the author thought that using the plants rendered them extinct, then the author’s conclusion would be a contradiction. There would be no way to "ensure that chemicals from plants are available for use in the future" if using plants to make chemicals rendered the plants extinct.

(D) Too extreme. "The only" way? The author probably thinks that this self-interest is ONE way, but he might agree that paying people money, providing romantic favors, or threatening them at gunpoint could be other ways to convince them to preserve a natural resource.

(E) Too extreme. We know from the author’s comments that at least SOME species have been lost. This is saying the author believes that NEARLY ALL endangered species have been lost. The author is imploring us to make MORE serious efforts at conservation. That doesn’t mean that previously we haven’t expended serious (and potentially successful) efforts.

Again, this question is weird. The correct answer doesn’t clearly impede the logic of the author’s conclusion, nor does it clearly deal with the connective tissue between the first sentence and the second sentence.

The only sense in which (C) is integral to the gap is this:

PREMISE:
an opportunity exists

CONCLUSION:
we should take this action to pursue the opportunity

ASSUMPTION:
Pursuing the opportunity is not a hopeless, self-defeating endeavor.

[coco.wu1993]

(C) Yeah, I’d say the author believes this. He’s encouraging preservation of plants for the sake of being able to make helpful chemicals from these plants. He definitely doesn’t seem to be thinking that making the chemicals would eradicate the plants. He’s optimistically thinking we could SAVE plants from being extinct so that we can CONTINUE to use them for helpful chemicals. If the author thought that using the plants rendered them extinct, then the author’s conclusion would be a contradiction. There would be no way to "ensure that chemicals from plants are available for use in the future" if using plants to make chemicals rendered the plants extinct.

I think the author means save all the endangered plants now so we can utilize them in the future. It's different from save the endangered plants currently deriving medicine so we can continue to use them later.

If my interpretation is correct, then the negation of C doesn't affect the argument at all. Using endangered plants may render them extinct, but we are not to use them NOW.

Could you please give some more explanation on this? Thank you so much!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, which further testifies to the sloppiness of this question.

I don't think the author is narrowly saying "protect only the plants we already use" or "protect only the plants we aren't currently using". I think he's just saying "protect all our plants so that we have the ability to use them now and in the future".

(C) still hurts the logic because the author is saying "in order to ensure they're available in the future for making chemicals, let's preserve for all time our natural resources."

Well whether we exploit them now or later for chemicals, if doing so renders them extinct, then there is something inherently self-contradictory about his conclusion.

We would either be preserving them for all time and never using them for chemicals
or
we would at some point use them as chemicals and not be preserving them for all time.

Hope this brings us all peace with this terrible question.

[coco.wu1993]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, which further testifies to the sloppiness of this question.

I don't think the author is narrowly saying "protect only the plants we already use" or "protect only the plants we aren't currently using". I think he's just saying "protect all our plants so that we have the ability to use them now and in the future".

(C) still hurts the logic because the author is saying "in order to ensure they're available in the future for making chemicals, let's preserve for all time our natural resources."

Well whether we exploit them now or later for chemicals, if doing so renders them extinct, then there is something inherently self-contradictory about his conclusion.

We would either be preserving them for all time and never using them for chemicals
or
we would at some point use them as chemicals and not be preserving them for all time.

Hope this brings us all peace with this terrible question.

Got it! Thank you!