@mws7129 Lines 5-7 have what we need here. These lines discuss flooding and river clogging, and mention recreation. With these combined, it follows that water-based recreation (or transportation) would be affected.
@chris_vaon September 5, 2019
This question is a bit troubling, I thought with the lsat we were never supposed to assume. Transportation is a complete stretch here. Please help me understand.
Irinaon September 5, 2019
@chris_va,
This question requires us to make an inference, which is a common exercise on the LSAT. The passage mentions that forests help to prevent soil erosion that clogs rivers with silt (recreation is actually not related to the water). It is reasonable to infer that clogged rivers would impede any water-based transportation.
melissahamilton316on October 30, 2020
i meannnnn i never would've gone with A.. B maybe but A feels like such a stretch! :/
ScienceMathTutoron October 31, 2021
Over how long a period of time? How deep are the rivers? Water based transportation along rivers? In Oceans? Water based transportation in Forests? In Grasslands? In General? I mean holy moly that's a lot of unknowns.
I feel like there is more support for D)
"Another claim made is that the preservation of
.biodiversity, the globe's profusion of plant and animal
.species, requires a stricter policy to conserve forest especially tropical rain forest"
ScienceMathTutoron October 31, 2021
How much silt is required to build up in a river such that it's effects impede water based transportation? And if so in what way?
ScienceMathTutoron October 31, 2021
Does the silt decrease the water velocity in the river? Does it clog up engines? How am I to assume there aren't just as many positive effects of silt in water on water transportation?
jpmooreon November 9, 2021
Makes no sense. Water Transportation? Like What!?!
Ravion February 5, 2022
This is a really hard inference question. When the author's mentioning the benefits of forests, she is including the fact that forests prevent soil erosion, which clogs rivers with silt. Deforestation would then be getting rid of something that helps to keep rivers unclogged.
Even though the passage doesn't mention water-based transportation, it's fair to assume that some water-based transportation would be occurring in rivers. If rivers are clogged, which would be more likely to happen as a result of deforestation, that could constitute a negative effect on water-based transportation. So, because of the weak logical force here, this is a statement that is supported by the passage.
Ravion February 5, 2022
This is a really hard inference question. When the author's mentioning the benefits of forests, she is including the fact that forests prevent soil erosion, which clogs rivers with silt. Deforestation would then be getting rid of something that helps to keep rivers unclogged. Even though the passage doesn't mention water-based transportation, it's fair to assume that some water-based transportation would be occurring in rivers. If rivers are clogged, which would be more likely to happen as a result of deforestation, that could constitute a negative effect on water-based transportation. So, because of the weak logical force here, this is a statement that is supported by the passage.
