aurobindomahanty wrote:
Biologist: Lions and tigers are so similar to each other anatomically that their skeletons are virtually indistinguishable.But their behaviors are known to be quite different: tigers hunt only as solitary individuals,whereas lions hunt in packs.Thus,paleontologists cannot reasonably infer solely on the basis of skeletal anatomy that extinct predatory animals,such as certain dinosaurs,hunted in packs.
The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) The skeletons of lions and tigers are at least somewhat similar in structure in certain key respects to the skeletons of at least some extinct predatory animals.
(B) There have existed at least two species of extinct predatory dinosaurs that were so similar to each other that their skeletal anatomy is virtually indistinguishable.
(C) If skeletal anatomy alone is ever an inadequate basis for inferring a particular species’ hunting behavior,then it is never reasonable to infer,based on skeletal anatomy alone,that a species of animals hunted in packs.
(D) If any two animal species with virtually indistinguishable skeletal anatomy exhibit quite different hunting behaviors,then it is never reasonable to infer,based solely on the hunting behavior of those species,that the two species have the same skeletal anatomy.
(E) If it is unreasonable to infer,solely on the basis of differences in skeletal anatomy,that extinct animals of two distinct species differed in their hunting behavior,then the skeletal remains of those two species are virtually indistinguishable.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This is a tricky question because the logic, at first, seems pretty tight. Lions and tigers have “virtually indistinguishable” skeletons. Yet tigers hunt only as solitary individuals, and lions hunt in packs. From this evidence, the biologist concludes that paleontologists cannot reasonably infer solely on the basis of skeletal anatomy whether dinosaurs hunted in packs. Seems fair to me.
But maybe lions and tigers aren’t really analogous to dinosaurs. Maybe paleontologists have learned that every solo hunting dinosaur has certain skeletal features, and that every pack hunting dinosaur has certain different skeletal features. Then the paleontologist could say, “So what, dinosaurs are different,” to the biologist.
If, on the other hand, whatever is true for lions and tigers is also true for dinosaurs, then the biologist’s argument is sound. That’s my prediction: “Whatever is true for lions and tigers is also true for dinosaurs.”
A) This would be a good answer for a
Necessary Assumption question, because it is weakly worded. (“At least somewhat”… “at least some”…) I do think that A must be true for the biologist’s argument to make any sense. That’s the definition of a Necessary Assumption. But this question is asking for a
Sufficient Assumption. Answer A can be true without proving the author’s conclusion. We want something that proves the author’s conclusion, so we want something strong. We need words like “all” and “always.”
B) I’m not sure this is relevant. There’s nothing tying lions/tigers to dinosaurs here, nothing about solo hunters vs. pack hunters. Let’s keep looking.
C) This does it. If skeletal anatomy alone is
ever an inadequate basis for inferring a particular species’ hunting behavior, as it most certainly is with lions and tigers, then it is
never reasonable to infer, based on skeletal anatomy alone, that a species of animals hunted in packs. It would follow, then, that skeletal anatomy alone is not a reasonable basis for analyzing the hunting behavior of dinosaurs. This connects the dots, so this is a very good answer. See how much stronger the wording is here than in the incorrect answer? Note: Sufficient Assumption questions tend to like strongly-worded correct answers, and Necessary Assumption questions tend to like weakly-worded correct answers. That shouldn’t be your sole decision criteria, but it might help if you’ve narrowed it down to a 50-50.
D) This gets it all backward and twisted. The author needs to prove that it is unreasonable for paleontologists to infer hunting behavior from skeletons. This answer doesn’t do that. This answer makes it unreasonable for anybody to infer skeletal anatomy from hunting behavior, which nobody in the argument is trying to do. No way.
E) This answer does nothing to the argument because the author is trying to
prove it is unreasonable to infer something about extinct animals. This answer choice only matters if that has already been proven, which it has not. So this is out.
Our answer is C, because it’s the only one that proves the biologist’s conclusion.
close
Updated on: 16 Sep 2019, 20:55
43%
(02:40)
wrong 
