Yeah, I thought the missing details could show more non-human characteristics but it's been pointed out it could have gone the other way, so I thought it was flawed that the doctor was looking at potentially incomplete evidence.
The fact that some of the details were erased doesn't change the fact that the remaining footprint still has definitively human characteristics - the squarish heel and the big toe.
Maybe the erased details show something really weird and non-human, maybe they just show other human characteristics. But you don't know for sure from the answer choice that the details would show that the feet are nonhuman. For all we know, Dr. Tyson could still be right and we could just be missing extra human characteristics from the footprint.
Assume it does indicate the footprints were incomplete.
T's argument is:
They show human characteristics
So they're hominid prints
Does the fact that some details are missing from the print (note: which they would be anyway, no matter what) weaken? What would those missing details reveal? They they were in fact hominid or that they were definitely not? We have no idea.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
3 comments
Yeah, I thought the missing details could show more non-human characteristics but it's been pointed out it could have gone the other way, so I thought it was flawed that the doctor was looking at potentially incomplete evidence.
The fact that some of the details were erased doesn't change the fact that the remaining footprint still has definitively human characteristics - the squarish heel and the big toe.
Maybe the erased details show something really weird and non-human, maybe they just show other human characteristics. But you don't know for sure from the answer choice that the details would show that the feet are nonhuman. For all we know, Dr. Tyson could still be right and we could just be missing extra human characteristics from the footprint.
Assume it does indicate the footprints were incomplete.
T's argument is:
They show human characteristics
So they're hominid prints
Does the fact that some details are missing from the print (note: which they would be anyway, no matter what) weaken? What would those missing details reveal? They they were in fact hominid or that they were definitely not? We have no idea.