December 2013 LSAT Section 3 Question 25

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park...

DDL on November 20, 2019

Is this a typo? Has Not Adversely

The passage begins by saying, "New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park HAS NOT ADVERSELY affected the park's wildlife." It then goes on to say, "ON THE CONTRARY." Then gives information that the recent property development, in fact, didn't adversely affect the wildlife. Shouldn't the passage say, "has adversely"? "A" would then make sense because we would be looking for an answer to strengthen the argument against the subsidiary conclusion. If that is incorrect then could you please explain why?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

SamA on November 20, 2019

Hello @DDL,

I see what you mean. The wording is somewhat confusing, but it is not a typo. "On the contrary" is not disputing the claim in the first sentence. I'll paraphrase what they are trying to say.

New evidence shows that the new property has not adversely affected the park's wildlife. The effect was quite the opposite! The property development has helped the park's wildlife.

In this case, "on the contrary" doesn't indicate disagreement, but rather it is an even stronger agreement. Not only did the property not harm the park, it actually helped. If the author was disputing that first statement, it would be quite clear, and the argument would go in a different direction, showing that the development did damage the park.

Having said that, you are correct about A, but you may have had different reasons.

Conclusion: The recent property development has not adversely affected the park's wildlife.
Support: According to a survey before the development and a recent survey, wildlife has actually increased since the property was developed.
Support: The park's resources can support its current populations without strain.

To strengthen this argument, we want to show that the evidence given truly justifies the conclusion. "A" tells us that the increase in wildlife was not due to one species dominating the park, which might be an adverse effect. It tells us that all species have thrived, which supports the conclusion.

DDL on November 20, 2019

thanks

Ravi on November 29, 2019

@DDL, let us know if you have any other questions!