Critical Reasoning

Questions 7-8
The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.
7. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The seabirds that are killed by net fishing do not eat all of the species of fish caught by the fishing industry
(B) The government has not in the past sought to determine whether fish were contaminated with toxins by examining tissue samples of seabirds
(C) The government cannot gain an accurate count of the number of seabirds killed by net fishing unless the fishing industry cooperates
(D) If the government knew that fish caught by the fishing industry were contaminated by toxins, the government would restrict net fishing
(E) If net fishing were restricted by the government, then the fishing industry would become more inclined to reveal the number of seabirds killed by net fishing.
Page 3/3 Edited by 文谦
LSAT 逻辑阅读第二�二套
8. Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing?
(A) The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish
(B) The fishing industry could learn whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins if only a few of the seabirds killed by the nets were examined
(C) The government could gain valuable information about the source of toxins by examining tissue samples of the seabirds caught in the nets.
(D) The fish caught in a particular net might be contaminated with the same toxins as those in the seabirds caught in that net.
(E) The government would be willing to certify that the fish caught by the industry are not contaminated with toxins if tests done on the seabirds showed no contamination

IMO c & A are the answers.


Pls post the OA

Problem 1 is a great example of how LSAT problems can be a distraction from GMAT studies. That's because there is a specific pattern of logic that shows up at least once on every LSAT test, but appears only occasionally on the GMAT.

The pattern is as follows:
Conclusion: We must do plan Y. (test for toxicity)
Evidence: Plan X will fail. (relying on the industries honesty)
Assumption: There is no viable plan Z. (Independent observers? Statistical estimations? Flying robot bird-counters?)

The correct answer will therefore strengthen the assumption by making it less likely that there is a viable alternative. C is correct, because it eliminates the possibility of any plan in which the government goes it alone.

Problem 2, however, is much more GMAT like. Here, we have a proposal--which, per the Kaplan method, we paraphrase: "We will get an accurate count of seabirds by testing them for toxins." On the GMAT, predictions and proposals assume that they are viable on their own terms; we aren't looking for unrelated evidence that might or might not affect the conclusion, but rather for something that explains why testing birds for toxins will not lead to an accurate count. B says that testing birds for toxicity can be accomplished with only a few seabirds; in other words, there is no reason for testing to give an accurate count. It is our answer

8. A

OA please.

I would go with option A as the correct option