Q14 - Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
PETA doesn't want cable lines to be near electric lines because animals might get shocked. However, animals get shocked in places without cable lines near the electical ones, so PETA's complaint isn't valid.

Answer Anticipation:
In order to conclude that a practice shouldn't be implemented, there needs to be evidence that it's bad or, at least, ineffective. The goal of banning this practice is to save animal lives. Even if some animals still die, banning the practice could save others. The correct answer will probably deal with the gap here - something can be effective without entirely solving the problem.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Illegal reversal). What's sufficient for disproving PETA's argument? The argument doesn't mention one, and it certainly doesn't say anything's necessary for disproving the claim. If anything, it's treating the failure to prevent all deaths as sufficient to disprove the claim; it never says that's necessary.

(B) Boom. Some animals would still die. Because of that, the author rejects the claim, even if it might save enough lives to be justified.

(C) Wrong flaw (False Choice). Since the conclusion is about this particular argument for the ban instead of the ban itself, this answer choice doesn't apply. If the conclusion had stated that the ban shouldn't be implemented, this would be a correct answer.

(D) Wrong flaw (Ad Hominem). There's no attacks aimed at the wildlife activists (stating that their argument is unpersuasive is not a criticism when it's backed up by premises).

(E) Wrong flaw (False Choice). No other proposals are discussed, either specifically or generally.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Outcomes on the LSAT are important. Don't forget that a partial success can often be enough to justify a course of action!

#officialexplanation

[JamesM914]

I was stuck between B and C but chose C because I thought an advantage to banning the cables would mean MORE animals would be saved than it otherwise would have been.