Q15 - Extinction is the way

[Shiggins]

This question I am having some trouble dealing with.

The author states extinction has been consistently occurring

Then a group says modern extinctions are the result of human technology

The author concludes that in reference to the group, even if humans had no technology extinction of those modern species is inevitable.

To me, I feel the author is making no distinction between modern species extinctions and past extinctions. I believe a challenge to him would be that modern species developed an immunity that is negated by harm from human technology. In that case no technology-> no extinction and technology extinction.

I feel the author is assuming that the natural process of extinction that applies in the past still applies to modern species, which is what I believe choice E is stating.
If anyone could clarify, correct me, much appreciated. Thank you

Also I feel a lot of the earlier test LR sections use more abstract thinking in getting to the answer. Understanding terminology in relation to other sentences to me seems crucial in dealing with these questions. I also feel later test follow a more logical structure in which more things could be diagrammed. This is just an opinion if anyone wants to add, but I found the earlier LR sections a little more challenging.

[noah]

It seems like you're missing the essential problem with the argument, though you've nicely summarized the argument. Let me see if I can help you see the issue.

We know that extinction is a process that occurs naturally. And so from that, the author concludes that we can't blame modern technology for the species that have recently gone extinct.

Do you agree with that? Think about what you would say to debate that argument - to argue that technology is responsible.

I'd say that I agree that extinction is part of nature, but I still think technology is responsible for some of the recent extinctions. Just because something can be naturally occurring doesn't mean that it always is.

(E) plays on this issue in a subtle way. It points out that the animals that have recently become extinct might have become extinct because of technology - and the animals that would have become extinct naturally in recent times are different. So, for example, the blue-toed fungus monkey is the animal that would naturally go extinct in this century, but there's also the furry-lipped frog which just went extinct because of mercury poisoning from a factory.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is too strong - the author isn't saying there's been no harm, just that the extinctions are not because of technology.

(B) is out of scope as we're not interested in who is about to become extinct - it's all about whether technology is to blame for the extinctions that have recently occurred.

(C) is irrelevant - unidentified species?

(D) is not relevant to the core. We accept that extinction is the way of nature - who cares if there are some dissenting opinions? We obediently accept premises!

As for whether these earlier questions are more complex, I'm not sure. I don't have a good enough recall of things like that! But, I do know that there's tough LR questions in recent LSATs too!

So, the gap

[Shiggins]

Thank you Noah, I realize through your explanation that it is not through the difference in species that is the problem, but the idea of the process of extinction as still occurring.

There is a similar problem like this on a much later test. I believe its the politician who talks about jobs leaving the town. He makes a similar argument.

Thanks again Noah

[WaltGrace1983]

So does the argument look like this:?

Extinction is a part of nature

-->

The species that have become extinct would have became extinct regardless


In other words, the argument is essentially saying that BECAUSE nature leads to extinction THEN all extinctions are natural. Is it confusing a sufficient with a necessary?

Also, I do agree with the sentiment about older LSATs. While I don't know if they are harder, I think that they are definitely weirder. This weirdness, in turn, creates a little bit of difficulty. As we know, the LSAT is learnable and I think that we have for the most part learned it in a certain way that is a little bit disrupted when we come to some of these strange early PTs. Though this is just my two cents.

[skdygks03]

what is the conclusion of this passage?

I think the conclusion is 'the group who blames for recent extinction to human tech is wrong.'
But the passage seems to imply this, not reveals it expressly like other passage.

Or, the sentence "these people must be made to understand that the species that have become extinct in modern times would have become extinct by now even if humans had never acquired technology'" is the conclusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

If you read Noah's explanation, he says:
We know that extinction is a process that occurs naturally. And so from that, the author concludes that we can't blame modern technology for the species that have recently gone extinct.