easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Zoologist: Zoos play a vital role in conservation by educating the public about endangered species and funding research projects in the wild. Animal Rights Activist: Keeping animals in cages for public entertainment is fundamentally unethical, regardless of any educational or research benefits that might be claimed.
The zoologist and the activist are committed to disagreeing about which one of the following?
- Whether zoos, as presently operated, ought to continue to exist
- Whether zoos in fact channel money toward field research
- Whether educating the public has any value for conservation efforts
- Whether every animal housed in a zoo belongs to an endangered species
- Whether the conservation benefits zoos provide are real or merely claimed
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?