Q10 - In 2005, paleontologist

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

An important first step on this one is to make sure we understand our task. This question type is NOT common, though we have seen an increasing number of these lately. Evaluate questions ask us to find something that would be useful to know when evaluating the argument above. In this case, one of the questions when answered one way would strengthen the argument, while answered another way would weaken the argument.

The argument concludes that Schweitzer's discovery adds to the mountain of evidence that dinosaurs are closely related to birds. Why? Because Schweitzer's analysis of the collagen proteins of a T. Rex showed them to be similar to collagen proteins in modern-day chickens.

The question that begs to be asked is whether these collagen proteins are similar in all animals or whether there are differences that would make the similarity between T. Rex and the modern-day chicken significant. Answer choice (C) asks this question. If the answer to the question posed in answer choice (C) is "likely," that would undermine the argument. If the answer is "unlikely," that would support the argument.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope. The likelihood of finding preserved soft tissue in the bones of a dinosaur doesn't tell you whether Schweitzer's analysis adds to the evidence that dinosaurs are closely related to birds.
(B) is out of scope. This may help either prove or disprove the assertion that dinosaurs are related to birds, but it doesn't tell us whether Schweitzer's analysis adds to the support for that position.
(D) is out of scope. This is an irrelevant comparison.
(E) is out of scope. Whether scientists thought that the collagen proteins in T. Rex and chickens might be similar doesn't indicate whether those collagen proteins were indeed similar. A supposition is a long way from certain knowledge.

#officialexplanation

[sanchez.zoilac]

Hello, I narrowed the choices down to c and e
Can you help me understand why e would be wrong if it could possibly strengthen the finding.
Thank you!

[royW659]

I understand that C is correct, but I still think that E could be correct too. If researchers already supposed that the protein would be similar in both T REX and chicken, they would be looking for the similarity. Since they are pre-exposed with the idea that there would be similarities, it would be more biased and possible for them to identify some type of similarity. So, this would weaken their findings.

[Laura Damone]

Bias in the research process is definitely something that the LSAT tackles, so good on you for thinking of it. But, we have to be really careful about accusing research of harboring bias.

To me, it sounds like you're thinking about confirmation bias - the fact that people are more likely to believe things that align with what they already believe. While this is a very real thing, it applies much more to people consuming research than to the people conducting it. Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we should assume that scientists undertake their research objectively.

Say, for example, that a team of scientists suspects that the weed killer Round-up causes cancer. They get together, they start looking at the data. If the data shows that Round-up does cause cancer, we should treat that finding as objective.

Now, if we were told that the makers of Round-Up hired a team of scientists, and the research demonstrated no link between Round-up and cancer, there's reason to believe that finding was not objective. This is a clear possible conflict of interest. But it will have to be something glaring like this for the LSAT to consider the research as potentially biased. The mere fact that scientists are investigating something they think might be true doesn't meet that bar.