[moderator's note: moving ganbayou's post over here to its proper home]
ganbayou:
I dont understand why B is correct. does it vindicate the theory? I think the author has some suspicious about the theory and some biologists disagree either right?
why is B correct? by the way I chose A...
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q20
Type: Main Point
Pre-phrase:
To discuss the work of Steele (et. al.), who claims to have found evidence for a Lamarckian mechanism in the immune system.
(lines 12-16 ... right after a "but/yet/however/recently", like so many Main Points)
I would also consider the author's evaluation of this new research towards the end. The last paragraph is definitely guarded. The author is suggesting that Steele may have some circumstantial evidence, but fellow biologists are not ready to accept Steele's "radical" notion yet.
Answer Choices
(A) "proven correct" is way too strong. The last paragraph is way more tentative than that.
(B) This works. "They claim" to have found evidence matches the actual text.
(C) "have succeeded in showing" is like "proven correct" from (A).
(D) This is very narrow. The passage was not about how evolution relies on direct evidence and Steele's research relies on circumstantial. Also, this is contradicted by 46-47, which say that all evolutionary evidence is circumstantial.
(E) "by showing" they have "removed the main obstacle to Lamarck" is just like (A) and (C). The last paragraph is nowhere NEAR that trusting / accepting of Steele's research.
The correct answer is B.
Most science passages consist of an Old (Lamarck is wrong) contrasted with a New (Steele's team thinks Lamarck might be right) and end with an author's evaluation:
Gamechanger?
Too soon to tell?
Worth exploring?
Pre-phrase:
To discuss the work of Steele (et. al.), who claims to have found evidence for a Lamarckian mechanism in the immune system.
(lines 12-16 ... right after a "but/yet/however/recently", like so many Main Points)
I would also consider the author's evaluation of this new research towards the end. The last paragraph is definitely guarded. The author is suggesting that Steele may have some circumstantial evidence, but fellow biologists are not ready to accept Steele's "radical" notion yet.
Answer Choices
(A) "proven correct" is way too strong. The last paragraph is way more tentative than that.
(B) This works. "They claim" to have found evidence matches the actual text.
(C) "have succeeded in showing" is like "proven correct" from (A).
(D) This is very narrow. The passage was not about how evolution relies on direct evidence and Steele's research relies on circumstantial. Also, this is contradicted by 46-47, which say that all evolutionary evidence is circumstantial.
(E) "by showing" they have "removed the main obstacle to Lamarck" is just like (A) and (C). The last paragraph is nowhere NEAR that trusting / accepting of Steele's research.
The correct answer is B.
Most science passages consist of an Old (Lamarck is wrong) contrasted with a New (Steele's team thinks Lamarck might be right) and end with an author's evaluation:
Gamechanger?
Too soon to tell?
Worth exploring?
2 posts Page 1 of 1