I'd call this a Paradox question, Nathan would call it an Explanation question. Essentially we have two sets of facts that don't seem to jive with each other. The trees are actually working, in that they attracted a number of birds that did eat mosquitos, and yet, the mosquito population actually increased. How is this possible? It seems like a paradox, because the trees had an intended effect (to attract birds that ate many mosquitos) and simultaneously had the opposite of an intended effect (to lower to the mosquito population). We need to find an answer that will explain BOTH facts.
A. This answer choice does not explain why the mosquito population increased. We need to explain that while simultaneously recognizing that the birds did eat many mosquitos.
B. This answer choice is similar to A.
C. This would explain the paradox. This answer choice recognizes that the trees did attract many birds that ate many mosquitos, but the birds also ate organisms that ate mosquitos thereby increasing the overall mosquito population.
D. This might explain why the mosquito population has gone down, but not why it has gone up.
E. This is an answer choice that essentially says mosquito populations are impacted by things other than birds and fruit trees. Which is fine, except we need to explain this particular cause and this particular effect, saying that there are other overarching causes doesn't explain this particular cause/effect.
About Larkin: Larkin Robson is an LSAT Tutor and Attorney based out of New York City. He has a JD from NYU School of Law, has taught at West Virginia University School of Law and John Jay College in Manhattan. He has been teaching the LSAT for 8 years and founded an independent boutique LSAT company called 180 Degrees LSAT. Like Nathan, he scored a 179 on the actual test. His website is 180degreeslsat.com Tweet him @180degreeslsat.
From Larkin: I like the LSAT because there is actually a reason for the test. It is testing critical thinking and reading comprehension, both skills that are useful and valuable in the real world. I am a die hard philosophy buff and I think that the humanities and critical thinking are vastly undervalued in today's society, and the LSAT is essentially testing those skills. It means that studying for the test does not mean you are just studying for a stupid test, you are actually learning something useful.
Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends! --nathan