WHy is A wrong?
Is it the "loss" part? its not loss, but invasion so maybe if it says "involves new thing..." it would be better?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q18
Question Type:
Analogy/Application
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
The main point is most summarized in the first and last sentence of Psg B. It's essentially, "Relax --- invasive species are KILLING ecosystems; they're just CHANGING them"
Any prephrase?
To shift this into the abstract, maybe we'd expect something like "Don't worry about this new threat to X. The new thing isn't going to cancel out the existence of X; it's just going to change the nature of the existence of X."
Correct answer:
B
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This has the "cheer up, it's not so bad" aspect, but it sounds more like something is just decaying, whereas the author is emphasizing that it's simply changing (not necessarily for the worse).
(B) Alteration = change. Culture's folk music vs. music from other cultures = native ecosystem vs. invasive species. Not always lamentable = cheer up, it's not that bad.
(C) "Necessary consequence" sounds harsh. What would that match up with?
(D) "Only benefit from outside stuff" sounds harsh. What would that match up with? The author seems to say "Cheer up, you might benefit from how outside stuff changes this thing you knew." This answer choice is way too insistent that we NEED outside stuff.
(E) Topic Trap! This passage was not about whether something occurs artificially AND naturally.
Takeaway/Pattern: If we knew the gist of pst B was, "Oh, stop your hysteria. It's not that bad.", then A and B are the only ones with the right tone. If we knew the reason the author was saying "cheer up" was "It's changing, not being eliminated", then (B) is a closer match. (A) only deals with the decay of one thing. There's no outside influence threatening / affecting the thing.
#officialexplanation
Analogy/Application
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
The main point is most summarized in the first and last sentence of Psg B. It's essentially, "Relax --- invasive species are KILLING ecosystems; they're just CHANGING them"
Any prephrase?
To shift this into the abstract, maybe we'd expect something like "Don't worry about this new threat to X. The new thing isn't going to cancel out the existence of X; it's just going to change the nature of the existence of X."
Correct answer:
B
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This has the "cheer up, it's not so bad" aspect, but it sounds more like something is just decaying, whereas the author is emphasizing that it's simply changing (not necessarily for the worse).
(B) Alteration = change. Culture's folk music vs. music from other cultures = native ecosystem vs. invasive species. Not always lamentable = cheer up, it's not that bad.
(C) "Necessary consequence" sounds harsh. What would that match up with?
(D) "Only benefit from outside stuff" sounds harsh. What would that match up with? The author seems to say "Cheer up, you might benefit from how outside stuff changes this thing you knew." This answer choice is way too insistent that we NEED outside stuff.
(E) Topic Trap! This passage was not about whether something occurs artificially AND naturally.
Takeaway/Pattern: If we knew the gist of pst B was, "Oh, stop your hysteria. It's not that bad.", then A and B are the only ones with the right tone. If we knew the reason the author was saying "cheer up" was "It's changing, not being eliminated", then (B) is a closer match. (A) only deals with the decay of one thing. There's no outside influence threatening / affecting the thing.
#officialexplanation
2 posts Page 1 of 1