I think I'm just gonna take the L on this one. Genuinely have no clue how to decipher C. This is the most confusing grammar I've ever seen on a test question
Our DNA is not similar to Neanderthals restatement of conclusion. Our Ancestors DNA is either as similar read: not similar or LESS similar, but not (significantly) MORE similar.
Argument distills as:
Homo sapiens (known ancestors of us humans) can't have bred with Neanderthals because our DNA is way different than Neanderthals.
Comparative relationships:
DNA of Homo sapiens vs. us (similar)
DNA of Homo sapiens vs. Neanderthals (less similar than above)
-Notable assumptions here: we have DNA similar to Homo sapiens (our ancestors).
-Possible notable assumptions that might fit for SA: Our DNA must be similar to ALL our ancestors. If it's not similar, sorry but...they're not in the fam.
If Homo sapiens had DNA similar to Neanderthals to a meaningful degree, and was in fact MORE similar to Neanderthals, the anthropologist CANNOT rule out the possibility that we might also be related to Neanderthals.
His only reasoning that we can't be related to Neanderthals (conclusion) is because we don't share similar DNA (support).
Significantly different DNA = Not making it onto the family tree.
the only reason I got this question right is because literally none of the answers made sense, and C grammatically made no sense to me so I figured it had to be right... smh
I got it right, but I don't like how I got it right. I just did a process of elimination, and E wasn't appealing to me at all. I didn't pick C because I thought it was right; I picked it because I thought all the other answers were way worse. I know he said to do that but I don't like not fully understanding the questiona and feeling confident about an answer.
I dont understand why E is incorrect, if DNA similarity was not the result of inbreeding, then our premise of "they did not inbreed because the DNA's are different" won't work...?
I chose C initially, and then on blind review chose E because I was thinking more about what the argument was trying to prove, which is that prehistoric Homo sapiens did not interbreed with neanderthals, not that prehistoric Homo sapiens are genetically dis-similar to neanderthals.
For example, to put this into simpler terms I thought of it as saying if im not related to my "dad" then my mom couldn't have bred with him to make me. So, C would be saying my mom is not more related to my dad than I am which does not disprove that he is my dad.
What is wrong with this analysis based on the argument?
To preface I initially chose C because it was the only one that addresses the assumption that modern and prehistoric homo-sapien DNA is similar. However, on blind review I wasn't sure that this even mattered given that the argument wants to prove interbreeding and not that prehistoric Homo sapiens were genetically different to neanderthals.
the wording on C rlllyyy fucked me up but I tried to find the main point of the sentence and then negate it and I finally got there in blind review but breaking it down in real time is so difficult
I have been really struggling with this second. But! I figured out in the last lesson (and then applied it to this one) that I have been attacking the wrong part of the argument. So maybe this will help anyone who has been struggling. I have been trying to attack the conclusion and make it invalid. However, I realized that that was not the point. The point is to attack the argument as a whole. So, in other words, attack the system of support. Attack assumptions in the premises; do not attack the conclusions themselves. It sounds simple, but it really did just change the way I was going about answering these questions. I hope this helps someone else who is struggling!
#help I cannot understand SA and NA questions. Please give me any tips you have!!
2
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!
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.
137 comments
NA questions is the only question besides conditional mapping stuff i get constantly wrong. SOMEONE HELPPPPPPP
If anyone is having a problem deciphering this question type Kevin Lin’s video explaining NA questions really helped me!
Link:
I think I'm just gonna take the L on this one. Genuinely have no clue how to decipher C. This is the most confusing grammar I've ever seen on a test question
chat im cooked
To simplify C:
Our DNA is not similar to Neanderthals restatement of conclusion. Our Ancestors DNA is either as similar read: not similar or LESS similar, but not (significantly) MORE similar.
Argument distills as:
Homo sapiens (known ancestors of us humans) can't have bred with Neanderthals because our DNA is way different than Neanderthals.
Comparative relationships:
DNA of Homo sapiens vs. us (similar)
DNA of Homo sapiens vs. Neanderthals (less similar than above)
-Notable assumptions here: we have DNA similar to Homo sapiens (our ancestors).
-Possible notable assumptions that might fit for SA: Our DNA must be similar to ALL our ancestors. If it's not similar, sorry but...they're not in the fam.
If Homo sapiens had DNA similar to Neanderthals to a meaningful degree, and was in fact MORE similar to Neanderthals, the anthropologist CANNOT rule out the possibility that we might also be related to Neanderthals.
His only reasoning that we can't be related to Neanderthals (conclusion) is because we don't share similar DNA (support).
Significantly different DNA = Not making it onto the family tree.
the only reason I got this question right is because literally none of the answers made sense, and C grammatically made no sense to me so I figured it had to be right... smh
this question makes me want to cry
Bruh I always narrow the answer choices to the correct answer and the most popular incorrect answer
Tung tung tung sahur
1. Determine conclusion
2. Negate an answer choice till it makes the conclusion impossible.
This is the best method for consistently correct answer choices fast.
I chose C but in the br chose E ugh any help in like being more confident in my selection??
crazy how an argument about whether or not our ancestors got a piece of neanderthal nookie can send you into a chimp-like fury.
I got it right, but I don't like how I got it right. I just did a process of elimination, and E wasn't appealing to me at all. I didn't pick C because I thought it was right; I picked it because I thought all the other answers were way worse. I know he said to do that but I don't like not fully understanding the questiona and feeling confident about an answer.
I'm so mad, i was in between C and E and ultimately picked E.
ANALOGY????
I need someone to explain this to me like I am three. I was so confident in E and have no idea what C is trying to say, even after JY's explanation.
I dont understand why E is incorrect, if DNA similarity was not the result of inbreeding, then our premise of "they did not inbreed because the DNA's are different" won't work...?
FINALLY I got a question right (last one I already knew from a pt)
Reading C was like trying to read a foreign language. I haven't seen a bigger fuck you answer choice before.
I've been understanding NA but I just do not understand this question at all for some reason.
I chose C initially, and then on blind review chose E because I was thinking more about what the argument was trying to prove, which is that prehistoric Homo sapiens did not interbreed with neanderthals, not that prehistoric Homo sapiens are genetically dis-similar to neanderthals.
For example, to put this into simpler terms I thought of it as saying if im not related to my "dad" then my mom couldn't have bred with him to make me. So, C would be saying my mom is not more related to my dad than I am which does not disprove that he is my dad.
What is wrong with this analysis based on the argument?
To preface I initially chose C because it was the only one that addresses the assumption that modern and prehistoric homo-sapien DNA is similar. However, on blind review I wasn't sure that this even mattered given that the argument wants to prove interbreeding and not that prehistoric Homo sapiens were genetically different to neanderthals.
the wording on C rlllyyy fucked me up but I tried to find the main point of the sentence and then negate it and I finally got there in blind review but breaking it down in real time is so difficult
I have been really struggling with this second. But! I figured out in the last lesson (and then applied it to this one) that I have been attacking the wrong part of the argument. So maybe this will help anyone who has been struggling. I have been trying to attack the conclusion and make it invalid. However, I realized that that was not the point. The point is to attack the argument as a whole. So, in other words, attack the system of support. Attack assumptions in the premises; do not attack the conclusions themselves. It sounds simple, but it really did just change the way I was going about answering these questions. I hope this helps someone else who is struggling!
I think this is the first question I got right in this section. NA is kicking my butt
#help I cannot understand SA and NA questions. Please give me any tips you have!!