Q6 - Watanabe: To protect native kokanee salmon

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Strengthen: Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Watanabe- Conclusion: To protect the native salmon, we have to allow native trout fishing. Premise: each mature trout eats 250 mature salmon per year. Lopez- Conclusion: getting rid of non-native shrimp is a better way to protect the salmon than allowing trout fishing. Premise: the shrimp eat the plankton the young salmon need to survive and the young salmon are starving to death as a result.

Answer Anticipation:
The LSAT, of late, has been varying the way it tests principles by introducing the principle twist into a variety of different question types and question formats. This two-speaker Strengthen question asks us to supply a principle that helps to support the second speaker's conclusion. That conclusion is comparative: one way of protecting salmon is better than the other way. So, we want to start by predicting a comparative principle. Next, we want to think about the differences between the two proposals, since one of these differences will be the basis for conclusion that one approach is superior to the other. Watanabe's proposal is about allowing the public to do something that would help the salmon (fish the trout) whereas Lopez's requires coordinated action by some third party (shrimp eradication). A principle to strengthen Lopez's argument based on this difference might be something along the lines of "we can't trust the public to get the job done." Another difference is targeting the predators of a species versus targeting its food supply. "It's better to beef up the food supply than cull the herd of predators" would be a principle that works on this front. Yet another difference is protecting the mature vs. the immature salmon. "Always protect the little guys first and foremost" is a principle that addresses this difference. Finally, there is the native vs. non-native species difference. Watanabe wants to target a native species while Lopez wants to target a non-native one. "Always target the non-native species" would be a principle to address this difference. Now, this may seem like an awful lot of prediction, and it is! You probably don't need to prephrase a principle for each difference you identify, but we wanted to do so here so you can get a sense of what that would look like. What you really need to do is identify the differences, know which side would support Lopez, and be prepared to recognize a right answers that would help and wrong answers that would do the opposite.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Here it is, right out of the gate! This principle establishes that getting rid of the non-native shirmp is better than any other method. Some might be thrown off by the extreme language "eliminating" and "any other method." But for Principle Support questions, extreme language is OK. "Eliminating" matches Lopez's proposal, so that part isn't a problem, and while this principle goes above and beyond what we need because it establishes that shrimp eradication is preferable to any other method, not just trout fishing, but that's fine. It's OK to overshoot the mark in Principle Support and their close cousin, Sufficient Assumption.

(B) Which method will have the quickest results? We don't know! And are all other things equal in this case? No!

(C) Will one of these two methods reduce the number of species in a habitat? Yep: Lopez's. That means C would support Watanabe's proposal.

(D) Would either proposal introduce a non-native species into a habitat? Nope. So this one just doesn't apply.

(E) Would one of these proposals preserve salmon of prime reproductive age? Sure, Watanabe's would. That means, like C, this principle would support Watanabe's proposal instead of Lopez's.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Don't be thrown off by the new school of principle questions. This two-speaker question is just a Principle Support question in disguise. Know what you need to prove, and if that thing is comparative (one thing better than another), identify some differences that might account for that ranking. Be prepared for wrong answers that would support the opposite conclusion, and for wrong answers that simply don't apply because they don't address a difference between the two things being compared.

#officialexplanation

[amr]

I would actually argue that E doesn't necessarily support Watanabe, and is wrong for a different reason. I think you're making the assumption that mature fish are in the "prime reproductive stage." We don't know that young or mature kokanee salmon are in their prime reproductive stages (these are such vague terms). Rather, E is wrong because it states, "when seeking to increase the population of a given species." Our objective is to protect the native kokanee salmon (first sentence of the stimulus). A specifically states a principle that, "is preferable to any other method of protecting the threatened native species."

Thus, A sufficiently meets our objective. E is going too far, and doesn't necessarily strengthen Watanabe or Lopez's argument over the other, due to the subjective terminology.

[Laura Damone]

Perhaps I should put it this way: If anything, E supports Watanabe. Do we have to assume that mature salmon are of prime reproductive age. Sure. And is that a red flag? Maybe so. But is that grounds for elimination? I don't think so.

"Mature" in the biological sense is all about reproductive capability. It's about having an adult body, and it's the ability to reproduce that distinguishes this body from the immature body of a younger member of the species. So I don't think it's a fatal leap to assume that the mature salmon are in the prime reproductive age and the young ones are not.

I do, however, agree with you that the subtle difference in the target of E: "seeking to increase the population" as opposed to "protection of native kokanee," is grounds for dismissal. I would call this a great alternate way to eliminate E.

As is so often the case with incorrect answers, this one is bad for a number of reasons. Recognizing any one of them will get the job done. Nice work!