LSAT Question Stem

The pilot counters the conservationist by 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The conservationist presents a conclusion that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk to airplane passengers. The premise supporting this conclusion is that in the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The pilot counters this argument by pointing out that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. The pilot's counter-argument implies that as the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

The question type is Method of Reasoning (MOR), which asks us to identify how the pilot counters the conservationist's argument. We are looking for the answer choice that accurately describes the pilot's counter-argument.

a) attempting to show that the conservationist's description of the facts is misleading

The pilot points out that the majority of the collisions occurred within the past 2 years and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing, which implies that the conservationist's facts do not provide a complete picture of the situation. This answer choice accurately describes the pilot's counter-argument.

b) questioning the conservationist's motives for reaching a certain conclusion

The pilot does not question the conservationist's motives. Instead, the pilot provides additional information to counter the conservationist's argument. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time

The pilot does not make a general claim about dangerous situations. Instead, the pilot specifically addresses the situation at hand (collisions between birds and airplanes) and provides reasons to believe it is becoming more dangerous. This answer choice is incorrect.

d) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist's argument is based

The pilot does not discuss any moral principles. The pilot's counter-argument is based on providing additional information about the situation. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist

The pilot does not dispute the accuracy of the conservationist's figures. Instead, the pilot provides additional information that the conservationist did not mention. This answer choice is incorrect.

The correct answer is A, as the pilot counters the conservationist's argument by attempting to show that the conservationist's description of the facts is misleading.