Politician: Critics of the wetlands protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the ...

Naz April 22, 2015

The conclusion is: "in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands."

Why? We know that critics of the wetlands protection bill are delaying passage of the legislation on the grounds that they disagree with the new, more restrictive definition of the word "wetlands." And we also know that the bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do.

But, we do not know why these critics are quibbling over the new definition of the word "wetlands." It is possible that the new definition is integral to the result of the legislation. If so, then it actually means that the critics really do care about what happens to the wetlands since they are fighting over a key term in the legislation.

This is exactly what answer choice (B) points out: "It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word 'wetlands' determines the impact of he legislation."

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

amf January 2, 2020

Can you please explain why we can eliminate choice A?

jjk3 March 3, 2020

Yes I would also like to know why choice A is eliminated!

shunhe March 28, 2020

Hi @amf and @ijk3,

Thanks for the question! (A) isn’t right for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that (A) is simply too strong of a statement, something that’s always important to watch out for in LR questions. (A) tells us that the political is falsely identifying the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands protection bill with the motives of ALL those who are opposed to conservation. This isn’t the case: the politician merely states that the critics show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands, but the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation are never brought up, and so we can’t make this logical leap.

Also, this is really a flaw in the reasoning question, and (A) doesn’t identify the best flaw in the reasoning. Recall on the LSAT that we always need to be picking the best answer choice, not just an adequate one. What the political is doing about talking about the motives of the critics is not really a flaw in the reasoning of the logic of the politician. It might have been had he said that because critics don’t care, they’re delaying passage of the bill. But instead, the politician is making the opposite argument, inferring something about the critics’ motives from their actions, which is more valid of a move.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.