Q23 - Researchers have found that some unprotected

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
No argument here. We just need the facts: some unprotected areas outside a national park have higher numbers of certain bird species than comparable areas inside the park. That's weird, because the park was designed to protect birds.

Answer Anticipation:
We need an answer to explain why things seem to be better for the birds outside the park than inside it. Since this is comparative, predict an answer that raises a relevant difference and rule out any answers that make irrelevant comparisons, establish similarities, or further the paradox.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Bingo! A relevant difference: more moose in the park. If moose eat the food the birds need to survive, it would explain why there are more birds in some areas outside the park than inside it.

(B) Reptiles? Who cares. Irrelevant comparison!

(C) Hmmm…mobile birdies that move in and out of the park. Ok, maybe this could account for more birds outside the park if a lot of the inside-the-park birds happened to be outside the park the day the researchers were bird counting, but this is the kind of stretch the LSAT doesn't usually want you to make.

(D) This establishes a similarity, not a difference, so it can't help us explain a difference.

(E) Endangered vs. not endangered isn't really relevant, and if anything, this just adds to the paradox by showing that not only are there more birdies of certain species outside the park, but specifically there are more of the birdies the park was designed to protect outside the park.

Takeaway/Pattern:
In order to explain a difference, you need to establish a difference. There are usually a lot of possible options, so don't force a specific prephrase when a generic one will do. Know what you need the right answer to accomplish and be on the look out for the standard cast of incorrect answer characters for Explain a Result questions: irrelevant (B), adds to the paradox (E), only explains half of the paradox, or needs too much backstory to help (C).

#officialexplanation

[CodyB18]

I'm not sure why C is wrong. Laura mentions "Ok, maybe this could account for more birds outside the park if a lot of the inside-the-park birds happened to be outside the park the day the researchers were bird counting, but this is the kind of stretch the LSAT doesn't usually want you to make." But, if they don't want us to make this stretch then why is the answer choice stating just that? No where does it state the birds can't fly (as birds do) outside of the park. Are we supposed to assume the top of the park is completely covered or these aren't flying birds? I feel like those are pretty large assumptions.

[Laura Damone]

Hey! When I say that "this is the kind of stretch the LSAT doesn't usually want you to make," I don't mean that the facts presented in C are a stretch. Facts are just facts, and we always accept them as true. What I mean is that using these facts to explain this situation is a stretch, and the LSAT won't usually make that kind of a stretch in a correct answer. Does that make more sense?

Sure, they tagged a bunch of birds in the park. And sure, 3 months later they found some of them outside the park. Those are facts. But do those facts explain why there are "substantially higher numbers of certain bird species" outside the park? I don't think so. It shows that birds can travel from the park to outside-park-limits, but that doesn't explain the substantially higher number outside the park than inside.

There are two main reasons for this. First, the degree. We learned that some birds moved, but is that enough to explain a substantially higher number? Nope. Too weak. "Some" is almost never the degree of a correct answer in an Explain question, because it's just not strong enough to have an impact. Same goes for Strengthen and Weaken questions.

Second, just showing that movement can happen from inside-the-park to outside-the-park doesn't give us much reason to believe that it explains why there are way more of certain species outside the park. It shows movement is possible, but doesn't give us a reason why the birds would move in great numbers.

A, on the other hand, shows that there is stiff competition from moose for food inside the park, but much less competition from moose outside the park. That's a good explanation for why there are way more of certain birds outside the park than in it. The degree is also good. "Much more prevalent" and "eat much of the food that birds need to survive" are both nice and strong.

Hope this helps!