LSAT Forum
7 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- adams.r.jason
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 1
- Joined: August 06th, 2012
Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
Can someone please explain the answer to me. I incorrectly chose (D) and I can't figure out why it was wrong.
-
- isaac.botier
-
Thanks Received: 20
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 19
- Joined: October 05th, 2011
- This post thanked 4 times.
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
Here's how I broke it down. Hope it helps!
Q11. (E)
Question Type: Flaw (Assumption Family)
We’re in the Assumption Family so we need to find our core, starting with the conclusion and then the premise.
The core is relatively straightforward for this question:
Biologists are aware of more species of amphibians than before --> the claim that pollution is eliminating many amphibian species every year is undermined.
I think it could be helpful to use simple numbers to illustrate the flaw here. Let’s say scientists were aware of 100 species of amphibians at the beginning of 2012 and that they noticed that 5 of these species were eliminated in the past 9 months. If scientists now discovered 50 new species of amphibians, that wouldn’t change anything about the 5 that were eliminated (or about the reason they were eliminated).
(A) is incorrect and hard to decipher at first. Kinds of things could be something like Apples and Oranges and things that are of those kinds would be different types of Apples and Oranges. There is no such confusion in our prompt.
(B) would be the right answer if our flaw was a reversal of logic. For example if we had a premise that said "Anyone in Queens is in New York" and a conclusion that said "You’re in New York so you must be in Queens." Our core however doesn’t involve a reversal of logic.
(C) is incorrect - there is no cause and effect relationship here that could be confused
(D) is incorrect because there is no correlation causation issue in our prompt. The premise doesn’t contain a correlation and the conclusion does not have a causal relationship.
--
(E) is correct because the changes in our knowledge of objects corresponds to scientists being aware of more species of amphibians and the changes in the objects themselves corresponds to amphibian species being eliminated. Just because scientists are now aware of more species doesn’t mean that species aren’t being eliminated.
Q11. (E)
Question Type: Flaw (Assumption Family)
We’re in the Assumption Family so we need to find our core, starting with the conclusion and then the premise.
The core is relatively straightforward for this question:
Biologists are aware of more species of amphibians than before --> the claim that pollution is eliminating many amphibian species every year is undermined.
I think it could be helpful to use simple numbers to illustrate the flaw here. Let’s say scientists were aware of 100 species of amphibians at the beginning of 2012 and that they noticed that 5 of these species were eliminated in the past 9 months. If scientists now discovered 50 new species of amphibians, that wouldn’t change anything about the 5 that were eliminated (or about the reason they were eliminated).
(A) is incorrect and hard to decipher at first. Kinds of things could be something like Apples and Oranges and things that are of those kinds would be different types of Apples and Oranges. There is no such confusion in our prompt.
(B) would be the right answer if our flaw was a reversal of logic. For example if we had a premise that said "Anyone in Queens is in New York" and a conclusion that said "You’re in New York so you must be in Queens." Our core however doesn’t involve a reversal of logic.
(C) is incorrect - there is no cause and effect relationship here that could be confused
(D) is incorrect because there is no correlation causation issue in our prompt. The premise doesn’t contain a correlation and the conclusion does not have a causal relationship.
--
(E) is correct because the changes in our knowledge of objects corresponds to scientists being aware of more species of amphibians and the changes in the objects themselves corresponds to amphibian species being eliminated. Just because scientists are now aware of more species doesn’t mean that species aren’t being eliminated.
-
- ElizabethM261
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 29th, 2017
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
Is it an inappropriate "inference" to say there's a correlation error between pollution and amphibian population? Seem's pretty clear to me the author is discussing a relationship between the two.
Please further explain why C and D are incorrect.
"(C) is incorrect - there is no cause and effect relationship here that could be confused
(D) is incorrect because there is no correlation causation issue in our prompt. The premise doesn’t contain a correlation and the conclusion does not have a causal relationship. "
Thanks!
Please further explain why C and D are incorrect.
"(C) is incorrect - there is no cause and effect relationship here that could be confused
(D) is incorrect because there is no correlation causation issue in our prompt. The premise doesn’t contain a correlation and the conclusion does not have a causal relationship. "
Thanks!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
The only claim of causality is made by the environmentalists. They claim that "Pollution (cause) is eliminating many amphibs (effect) each year".
THEY might be going off a correlation and committing a correlation vs. causality error.
Say, for example, that this is their argument:
ENVIRONMENTALISTS:
The areas where the most species of amphibians have gone extinct are the same areas that have the most pollution (correlation). Thus, pollution is eliminating many of these species every year. (causality)
We could say that ^ this argument has the confusion described in (D).
We might even be able to say that ^ this argument has the confusion described in (C), if we thought it was plausible to say that "when amphibians go extinct it causes pollution to increase".
(C) is describing a confused author who looked at a correlation between X and Y and inferred that X caused Y, when it could be at least as likely that Y is causing X.
An example of that would be more like
A recent survey found that people who drive fancy luxury cars are more likely to be very wealthy. So apparently if you want to get rich, you should drive a fancy luxury car.
This argument confuses cause and effect, in the sense that it's more likely from that correlation that "being very wealthy" is the Cause and "driving a fancy luxury car" is the Effect.
Our author isn't presenting any correlation as evidence. The first sentence can't really be described that way. It's not a relationship between X and Y. It's just saying as a fact that "last year we found out that there are more species of amphibs than we previously knew about".
Committing a causal flaw from THAT piece of evidence would sound something like, "So clearly the existence of more species of amphib is causing us to know about them". (which sounds crazy)
Our author is shooting down someone else's causal argument, but our author isn't engaging in making a causal inference.
Our author is just saying "GIVEN THAT we now know of more species of amphib than ever before WE CAN CONCLUDE that we're not losing many species of amphib each year."
The author isn't attacking the pollution hypothesis; she's really just attacking the credibility of the idea that species are being eliminated by thinking, "How could the number of species be going down if the number of species we know about just went up to its highest ever number?"
Hope this helps.
THEY might be going off a correlation and committing a correlation vs. causality error.
Say, for example, that this is their argument:
ENVIRONMENTALISTS:
The areas where the most species of amphibians have gone extinct are the same areas that have the most pollution (correlation). Thus, pollution is eliminating many of these species every year. (causality)
We could say that ^ this argument has the confusion described in (D).
We might even be able to say that ^ this argument has the confusion described in (C), if we thought it was plausible to say that "when amphibians go extinct it causes pollution to increase".
(C) is describing a confused author who looked at a correlation between X and Y and inferred that X caused Y, when it could be at least as likely that Y is causing X.
An example of that would be more like
A recent survey found that people who drive fancy luxury cars are more likely to be very wealthy. So apparently if you want to get rich, you should drive a fancy luxury car.
This argument confuses cause and effect, in the sense that it's more likely from that correlation that "being very wealthy" is the Cause and "driving a fancy luxury car" is the Effect.
Our author isn't presenting any correlation as evidence. The first sentence can't really be described that way. It's not a relationship between X and Y. It's just saying as a fact that "last year we found out that there are more species of amphibs than we previously knew about".
Committing a causal flaw from THAT piece of evidence would sound something like, "So clearly the existence of more species of amphib is causing us to know about them". (which sounds crazy)
Our author is shooting down someone else's causal argument, but our author isn't engaging in making a causal inference.
Our author is just saying "GIVEN THAT we now know of more species of amphib than ever before WE CAN CONCLUDE that we're not losing many species of amphib each year."
The author isn't attacking the pollution hypothesis; she's really just attacking the credibility of the idea that species are being eliminated by thinking, "How could the number of species be going down if the number of species we know about just went up to its highest ever number?"
Hope this helps.
-
- AnnaC659
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 40
- Joined: January 03rd, 2018
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
Hi,
I came down to (A) and (E) but ended up choosing (A).
I understand now why (E) is the answer. But I am still a bit confused about the abstract language of (A).
Could someone please go through (A) once again? Perhaps specifically in this particular context of amphibians/species of them? How would we change the stimulus maybe to make (A) the correct answer choice?
Thank you!
I came down to (A) and (E) but ended up choosing (A).
I understand now why (E) is the answer. But I am still a bit confused about the abstract language of (A).
Could someone please go through (A) once again? Perhaps specifically in this particular context of amphibians/species of them? How would we change the stimulus maybe to make (A) the correct answer choice?
Thank you!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
I have no idea how to write an argument that confuses what (A) is talking about, or how to match it up with what's going on here.
(A) sounds a bit like a Whole vs. Part flaw.
(A) confuses kinds of things [Wholes] and the things [the Parts] that are of those kinds.
EXAMPLE:
There are many different breeds of dogs. Since poodles are a more expensive breed, on average, to purchase than beagles, we can infer that Luke's poodle was more expensive than Hakeem's beagle.
(A) is kind of an apt description of the flaw there --- "hey, author ... we know that POODLES are a more expensive kind than BEAGLES, but we don't know that Luke's poodle is a more expensive thing than Hakeem's beagle."
With this argument, it's hard to even get off the ground in matching up (A) with the content of the paragraph, because there doesn't seem to be KINDS vs. THINGS.
Amphibians = KIND?
Are there any specific amphibians mentioned? No, not really. That's about where I would stop considering (A). If I can't match it to the conversation, then it's not worth the effort.
Maybe we could write an argument that would fit (A) by saying:
Biologists have recently determined that creekside amphibians are an endangered species in Fakeland. Since Kermit is a creekside amphibian, he must be endangered.
That argument confuses a trait that's true of a kind of things (creekside amphibian) with a thing of that kind (Kermit, the creekside amphibian).
(A) sounds a bit like a Whole vs. Part flaw.
(A) confuses kinds of things [Wholes] and the things [the Parts] that are of those kinds.
EXAMPLE:
There are many different breeds of dogs. Since poodles are a more expensive breed, on average, to purchase than beagles, we can infer that Luke's poodle was more expensive than Hakeem's beagle.
(A) is kind of an apt description of the flaw there --- "hey, author ... we know that POODLES are a more expensive kind than BEAGLES, but we don't know that Luke's poodle is a more expensive thing than Hakeem's beagle."
With this argument, it's hard to even get off the ground in matching up (A) with the content of the paragraph, because there doesn't seem to be KINDS vs. THINGS.
Amphibians = KIND?
Are there any specific amphibians mentioned? No, not really. That's about where I would stop considering (A). If I can't match it to the conversation, then it's not worth the effort.
Maybe we could write an argument that would fit (A) by saying:
Biologists have recently determined that creekside amphibians are an endangered species in Fakeland. Since Kermit is a creekside amphibian, he must be endangered.
That argument confuses a trait that's true of a kind of things (creekside amphibian) with a thing of that kind (Kermit, the creekside amphibian).
-
- DeAnnaL553
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: April 04th, 2022
Re: Q11 - In the last year, biologists have learned that there a
@ohthatpatrick Hi, could you explain why B is incorrect? Also, could you point in the direction of where i can go to get better at being able to figure out when to choose the "sufficient/neccessary assumption" answer choice? I always seem to incorrectly choose that answer choice when the other answer choices seem to not fit.
7 posts Page 1 of 1