Q17

[vcoats2]

Just completely missed the boat here. Can anyone explain why each answer choice should be eliminated?

[tommywallach]

Hey Vcoats,

The key on all of these comparative RC passages (where you have two people talking on the subject) is to really deeply understand where both people land on the scale (the scale is the fundamental building block of all LSAT RC Passages...see our books if you don't know all that good stuff).

The main thing at issue in this passage is whether or not it's a bad thing when non-native species are introduced into an ecosystem. The author of Passage A thinks it's a bad thing. The author of Passage B does not.

Question 17 asks us what the author of Passage B, who thinks it's neutral/good when new species are introduced, would think about something said by the author of Passage A, who thinks it's bad when new species are introduced. To work out whether it's something they'd agree about or disagree about, we need to look at the line.

"...the Everglades National Park in Florida appears wild and natural. yet this and other unique ecosystems are being degraded as surely as if by chemical pollution."

So the author is using "natural" to mean that the place may still look like an undisturbed habitat, whereas in fact it isn't. Before we look at the answer choices, we should think about how author B would see this. Author B believes that nature is not a fixed thing. Therefore, Author B would not approve of this definition of "nature" (as if only native species in a habitat qualify as "natural").

A) The author of passage B does not believe that an environment can be disturbed by non-native species, so would not believe this was a "Correct characterization."

(B) The author of passage B would disagree with this usage, but would not argue that the author of Passage A was contradicting himself. This is in keeping with the overall thesis of Passage A.

(C) Again, the author of passage B wouldn't like this, so would not agree that it helps to clarify anything.

(D) It's hard to know what the author believes is "conventional," so this is no good.

(E) While it may not be obvious, this correctly describes the negative opinion Author B would have about Author A's usage. "Conflate" means "to combine two things into one," and usually carries the negative connotation that those two things should not be combined. "Arbitrary" also fits, as the author of Passage B thinks that nature is not a single thing.

Let me know if that all makes sense!

-t

[qlewington]

I would just add that in lines 32-34, Passage B suggests that humans have ideas about what nature is supposed to be -- i.e. we construct an image of nature based on arbitrary ideals. The term "natural" is (subtly) defined according to those ideals.

Also, in lines 55-56, Passage B suggests that Passage A is "phrasing the issue" in a certain way to make the "stakes" seem "stark." This reinforces the idea that Passage A is making subtle rhetorical moves based on subjective (arbitrary!) values.

[ling.75]

I understand author A and B have different concepts about nature. But author B use "natural" to indicate that the national park may appear natural but is actually threatened by invasive plants. So author A is not so fond of considering the national park as natural?

So should the "natural" in this sentence be at least compatible with that in passage B?

[maryadkins]

I see what you mean, I think, although I think maybe you reversed "A" and "B" in your description.

We are looking for something Author B would agree with, and of the five answer choices, (E) is the only one that makes sense.

Author B thinks that there isn't one definition of "nature" and the real threat is "humans' ideas of what nature is supposed to be."

Line 17 of Passage A reveals one of these human's ideas: Author A's idea of what "natural" is NOT: the Everglades National Park.

Author B, therefore, says that Author B is conflating (confusing) what nature actually IS with what he thinks it SHOULD be.

This is why (E) is correct.