LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 3, Question 2
WeakenArgument structure
The observatory will preserve the survival of the wildlife on Mt. Shalko.
200,000 people per year visit Mt. Shalko for recreation, which threatens the wildlife, but if the observatory is built then people would be prevented from visiting.
Explanation
This argument ignores the fact that the observatory will have to be built on the mountain. Roads will be built, heavy machinery brought in, there will be noise, air and ground pollution, etc. It's very possible that building the observatory would be much more destructive to wildlife than the use of the mountain for recreation.
Answer choices
This may indicate that the wildlife on Mt. Shalko is important to save because they're rare. It doesn't affect the conclusion, however, which is that the observatory will save the wildlife.
This might sound tempting because it seems to indicate that observatory=bad, but we don't know why these groups oppose it. Taxpayers may oppose the observatory because it's expensive, hunters may oppose it because it would preclude them from hunting on the mountain. This answer choice doesn't weaken that the observatory would save the wildlife.
This points out the problem with the argument, which was that the author assumed recreational use is more destructive to wildlife than the actual observatory would be. If the complex and related infrastructure would disrupt wildlife just as much as recreational use then the conclusion makes no sense.
If anything this would strengthen the argument by saying that pollution surrounding the observatory would not increase. Presumably this is good for animals.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the observatory's impact on wildlife.