- Poison would only be accessible to squirrels and other rodents
→
Poisoning the gray squirrels would pose no threat to the owl population
This argument is objectively terrible and follows a very familiar format. It gives us a measure to reduce an undesirable event (in this case, the squirrels who destroy the owl's habitat) and then says that this measure would pose no threat to XYZ. "No" is a very strong word, especially on the LSAT. We can attack this argument by simply showing that poisoning the squirrels does pose a certain threat - even a small threat - to the owl population. A common answer on the LSAT would say something like, "the gray squirrel is a staple of the wild giraffe, the owl's main source of food." Ridiculous, sure, but incredibly relevant. However, I think the most obvious way to attack this is to talk about those "other rodents." It seems very likely that these rodents are necessary for the owl's survival. I bet owls rely on those rodents in some way!
(A) This does nothing to the argument. So it will probably kill off some red squirrels. The owls don't prey on red squirrels so, for the purposes of this question, this is irrelevant.
(B) Bingo. The owls primarily feed on rodents. The word primarily is crucial here because, if this were a later question especially, including "primarily" and not including "primarily" may be the difference between (B) being a wrong answer choice that weakens slightly and the right answer choice that weakens sufficiently. If we just say that the "owls feed on rodents," this doesn't do THAT much because we need to establish that rodents are pretty crucial for the owl. Maybe owls feed on rodents sometimes but they wouldn't be harmed at all if the rodents disappeared - they would just find a different source of food. Basically what I am trying to say is that we have to show why the rodents are important - this answer choice does.
(C) I don't care about other birds. I care about ONLY owls.
(D) This just tells us a little bit more of what owls and squirrels do. This fails to do anything for the argument.
(E) We don't need more information about the plan. We want more information about the effects of the plan. Will this plan hurt the owls in anyway? That's what we want to know!