LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
Environmentalist: To protect endangered species, we must either ban all development in their habitats or accept their inevitable extinction. Since we cannot allow species to go extinct, we are obligated to ban all development.
- AThe environmentalist ignores the possibility that some development might be compatible with species survival.
- BThe environmentalist fails to consider that banning development might have negative economic consequences.
- CThe environmentalist does not provide evidence that current development is the primary cause of extinction.
- DThe environmentalist assumes that the only way to prevent extinction is to ban all development.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. The environmentalist ignores the possibility that some development might be compatible with species survival.
The environmentalist presents a false dilemma, suggesting only two extreme options: complete ban or total extinction. This ignores the possibility of intermediate solutions, such as carefully managed or limited development that could coexist with species preservation.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Economic consequences are outside the scope of the logical flaw in the argument's structure.
- C. This would be a flaw in evidence, but the core logical flaw is the structure of the choice presented.
- D. While related, the flaw is more about the forced choice between two extremes rather than just assuming one is the only way.
False Dilemma (LSAT)
A fallacy that presents only two options or outcomes as if they are the only possibilities, when in fact more options exist.
- Often uses 'either/or' phrasing.
- Limits the scope of choices artificially.
- Ignores a spectrum of possibilities or alternative solutions.
Memory trick: Don't get trapped by 'either/or' when there's a whole spectrum in between.