Q2 - There are 70- 100 Florida panthers

[ssfriend.88]

Pretty straightforward inference question, here's my thought process:

A - Don't like the strong language of "only" and I'm not entirely sure what the direct relevance of "marginal quality" is to the argument. Eliminate.
B - Seems like it may be confusing sufficient and necessary conditions, but is close. Leave for now.
C - This seems more on target. If panthers do not acquire a bigger habitat, the population will not be self-sustaining. This is directly from the argument. Bingo
D - Again, the word "never" is very strong wording, and this claim isn't supported.
E - Completely irrelevant and unsupported by the argument.

C is correct, but for good measure B is wrong because it is in fact confusing the conditional argument. Although it is true that the population is necessary to reach 250 to be self-sustaining, no where is it implied that a population of 250 or more, in and of itself, is sufficient to be self-sustaining.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice run through ssfriend.88! And good catch on the reversed logic in answer choice (B).

Answer choice (C) links together nicely the statements that if the panthers are going to be self-sustaining, they need a larger population. And by contrapositive if the panters are going to get a larger population, then need more habitat.

I'd like to add that answer choice (E) isn't wholly irrelevant. It tries to get you to think that if the population is larger now than in the 1970's that the habitat is larger now than in the 1970's. While for some this might be tempting if one links the habitat size to the population size. But while habitat is one condition the panthers need, the population may have been smaller in the 1970's for some reason other than a smaller habitat.

Thanks again ssfriend.88 for posting your explanation, great work!