@Arthurxx update: so before reading each MC say " the necessary assumption is.." then continue reading that MC, also simplified try finding your the gap just like sufficient assumption but your not trying to make an absolute proof to close the case, you just want to literally keep it alive, so take the broader MC. That's what I got so far still learning lol
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
yeah except this is cap. half of these questions play on exactly that assumption and you end up picking an answer that supports the conclusion because that's what we've been so dialed in on in LR instead of the ARGUMENT
Not sure how you not being able to do it makes it cap, you don’t have to follow my advice. I didn’t have any problems with it. I think you’re just overthinking it. It’s in my opinion the best keep-it-simple-stupid strategy and will work easily on 90% of NA problems you see in under a minute, even complex level 5’s with many moving parts you walk away with a very confident answer every time. Which for the LSAT, is a feeling and success rate I’ll take happily. Just saying what works for me.
I suck at NA! I have been getting every question wrong so far and I literally did this for this question and got it right! I'm going to keep testing this to see how I do.
- it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals'... this is not the case.. Remember, this is the author's ultimate grand point and one of the option's is required for it to be possible. So essentially, what we do now is assume that instead of the answer choices being all true, we assume that they're false and ask our selves in the reality where our answer choice has been inverted if the conclusion is still reachable. If our conclusion is no longer reachable we have found the NECESSARY assumption that the author is making for their conclusion to be possible when it is not inverted.
2. Negate until this is not possible
A) If we assume they did not live at the same time or place as human's, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, our conclusion can still be be possible, it arguably bolsters the conclusion that they did not breed.
B) If we assume DNA testing of remains is not less reliable than testing living people. Does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, it again boosts the chances that the conclusion is true.
C) If we assume that DNA of our ancestors WAS more similar to Neanderthal's than ours, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? YES. If their DNA is somehow more similar to each other than us, their direct descendants, it must have been the case that they bred.
Essentially, by assuming one of the answers as the opposite, we learned what assumption was absolutely necessary for our conclusion to remain true. This is very fast in practice the more you train it. It does rely on being able to consistently get the conclusion correct.
@spencerrobertsmithtn358 C) says "The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans."
The above statement is saying that the difference between the DNA of our ancestors and the DNA of Neanderthals was not significantly smaller than the difference between our DNA and the DNA of Neaderthals. The groups being compared are ancient homo sapiens and Neanderthals, on the one hand, and modern homo sapiens and Neaderthals, on the other hand.
If we negate answer choice C), then that means the difference or 'gap' between our ancestor's DNA and that of Neanderthals is smaller than the gap between our DNA and that of Neanderthals. It does not mean that our ancestor's DNA is more similar to that of Neanderthals than it is to ours.
The grammar parsing was super hard. I only understand the comparative claim after reading/watching the video.
But now I understand that: if [the DNA of prehistoric Homo Sapien ancestors was NOT significantly more similar to Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans], it would mean that the fact premise [the DNA of contemporary humans being significantly different than that of the Neanderthal] would not necessarily support the conclusion that they didn't interbreed. That fact could be the result of genetic change over time after interbreeding.
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.
@pbc45 I'm similar in that I felt like C was the correct answer but kept staring at it and rereading it to figure out why it was the correct answer. Ultimately, I could not parse the grammar but selected it anyway because everything else was definitely wrong.
I chose C, but chose E in the blind review. It took me an hour to figure out this question. I hope my thinking process can help you.
The logic of the conclusion of the question is: the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals is significantly different, so the prehistoric ancestors of Homo sapiens did not interbreed with Neanderthals.
My idea is that this question implies a core assumption, "If the ancestors of Homo sapiens had interbred with Neanderthals, their DNA should be closer to Neanderthals than modern humans (after all, modern humans can no longer interbreed with Neanderthals); and subsequent evolution may cause DNA differences to gradually increase."
Let me make an analogy (not so accurate). In the world of Harry Potter, magic is inherited by wizards, right? When a wizard marries a Muggle, their offspring also have magic. When two wizards marry, their offspring will be stronger than mixed-bloods (so those racists want to create a pure-blood wizard society).
Now let's assume that Jake is a Muggle and he has no magic at all. At this point, I came to a conclusion that there is a significant difference in magic between Jake and wizards, so Jake's ancestors have not interbred with wizards.
I need a necessary assumption to make this conclusion not so bad. In this case, answer option C translates to "Jake's ancestors did not have more magic than Jake", which is a necessary assumption. Because if we deny this option, it means that one of Jake's ancestors is more like a wizard than Jake, which means that he has at least a little magic, then he may have interbred with wizards, and my argument is completely broken.
Let's look at E, translate it, "The similarity between Muggles and wizards in magic must and can only come from interbreeding." Uh, it seems that it is not necessarily? Because I also know that some magic props can make Muggles have magic. Option E denies the behavior of other talented guys to make Muggles have magic, which makes E not a necessary condition.
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 struggled to understand exactly why E was incorrect for a while as well, but here’s what helped clarify JY’s explanation for me:
E is wrong because of two words: “Any similarity in the DNA of two species must be the result of interbreeding.”
So basically, it’s saying, “100% of the similarity in the DNA of two species is always the result of interbreeding,” which is pretty extreme.
If we try the negation test, we can do it in multiple ways, but here are two: “Any similarity in the DNA of two species doesn’t have to be the result of interbreeding.” or “Not all similarities in the DNA of two species must be the result of interbreeding.”
So when E is negated, the argument doesn’t completely fall apart - the argument is still valid without the assumption that 100% of the similarity in the DNA of two species results from interbreeding.
For example, maybe 99% of the similarity in DNA is the result of interbreeding, and 1% is just from some other random factor. Not all the similarity might be from interbreeding, but we can still reasonably use the comparison of the two DNA’s as a premise in this argument.
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.
147 comments
Answer choice C was harder to understand than the stimulus
4:40 but got it right ill take it for now
NO ME GUSTA!- I got it right tho
I have a problem with not reading the question fully and it will bend me over on this exam
I got to slow down. I got this wrong with 36 seconds under, but got it right on the BR after reading all options slowly smh
Was between E and C and chose E at first because i could not, for the life of me, understand what C was saying.
omg the first NA question I got right on my first attempt lmao
I FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT YIPPEE
NA questions is the only question besides conditional mapping stuff i get constantly wrong. SOMEONE HELPPPPPPP
@Arthurxx update: so before reading each MC say " the necessary assumption is.." then continue reading that MC, also simplified try finding your the gap just like sufficient assumption but your not trying to make an absolute proof to close the case, you just want to literally keep it alive, so take the broader MC. That's what I got so far still learning lol
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
@NathanielWright agreed.
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.
yeah except this is cap. half of these questions play on exactly that assumption and you end up picking an answer that supports the conclusion because that's what we've been so dialed in on in LR instead of the ARGUMENT
Not sure how you not being able to do it makes it cap, you don’t have to follow my advice. I didn’t have any problems with it. I think you’re just overthinking it. It’s in my opinion the best keep-it-simple-stupid strategy and will work easily on 90% of NA problems you see in under a minute, even complex level 5’s with many moving parts you walk away with a very confident answer every time. Which for the LSAT, is a feeling and success rate I’ll take happily. Just saying what works for me.
I suck at NA! I have been getting every question wrong so far and I literally did this for this question and got it right! I'm going to keep testing this to see how I do.
do you think you can explain how you negated the correct answer choice to determine it was right? would really appreciate it
thank you that was very helpful
@CXH1120
Yes, here is my train of thought:
1. Search for conclusion
- it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals'... this is not the case.. Remember, this is the author's ultimate grand point and one of the option's is required for it to be possible. So essentially, what we do now is assume that instead of the answer choices being all true, we assume that they're false and ask our selves in the reality where our answer choice has been inverted if the conclusion is still reachable. If our conclusion is no longer reachable we have found the NECESSARY assumption that the author is making for their conclusion to be possible when it is not inverted.
2. Negate until this is not possible
A) If we assume they did not live at the same time or place as human's, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, our conclusion can still be be possible, it arguably bolsters the conclusion that they did not breed.
B) If we assume DNA testing of remains is not less reliable than testing living people. Does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, it again boosts the chances that the conclusion is true.
C) If we assume that DNA of our ancestors WAS more similar to Neanderthal's than ours, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? YES. If their DNA is somehow more similar to each other than us, their direct descendants, it must have been the case that they bred.
Essentially, by assuming one of the answers as the opposite, we learned what assumption was absolutely necessary for our conclusion to remain true. This is very fast in practice the more you train it. It does rely on being able to consistently get the conclusion correct.
@spencerrobertsmithtn358 C) says "The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans."
The above statement is saying that the difference between the DNA of our ancestors and the DNA of Neanderthals was not significantly smaller than the difference between our DNA and the DNA of Neaderthals. The groups being compared are ancient homo sapiens and Neanderthals, on the one hand, and modern homo sapiens and Neaderthals, on the other hand.
If we negate answer choice C), then that means the difference or 'gap' between our ancestor's DNA and that of Neanderthals is smaller than the gap between our DNA and that of Neanderthals. It does not mean that our ancestor's DNA is more similar to that of Neanderthals than it is to ours.
The grammar parsing was super hard. I only understand the comparative claim after reading/watching the video.
But now I understand that: if [the DNA of prehistoric Homo Sapien ancestors was NOT significantly more similar to Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans], it would mean that the fact premise [the DNA of contemporary humans being significantly different than that of the Neanderthal] would not necessarily support the conclusion that they didn't interbreed. That fact could be the result of genetic change over time after interbreeding.
@JDMarathon this really helped me out so much thank you thank you
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.
Same here
@pbc45 I'm similar in that I felt like C was the correct answer but kept staring at it and rereading it to figure out why it was the correct answer. Ultimately, I could not parse the grammar but selected it anyway because everything else was definitely wrong.
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 chose C, but chose E in the blind review. It took me an hour to figure out this question. I hope my thinking process can help you.
The logic of the conclusion of the question is: the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals is significantly different, so the prehistoric ancestors of Homo sapiens did not interbreed with Neanderthals.
My idea is that this question implies a core assumption, "If the ancestors of Homo sapiens had interbred with Neanderthals, their DNA should be closer to Neanderthals than modern humans (after all, modern humans can no longer interbreed with Neanderthals); and subsequent evolution may cause DNA differences to gradually increase."
Let me make an analogy (not so accurate). In the world of Harry Potter, magic is inherited by wizards, right? When a wizard marries a Muggle, their offspring also have magic. When two wizards marry, their offspring will be stronger than mixed-bloods (so those racists want to create a pure-blood wizard society).
Now let's assume that Jake is a Muggle and he has no magic at all. At this point, I came to a conclusion that there is a significant difference in magic between Jake and wizards, so Jake's ancestors have not interbred with wizards.
I need a necessary assumption to make this conclusion not so bad. In this case, answer option C translates to "Jake's ancestors did not have more magic than Jake", which is a necessary assumption. Because if we deny this option, it means that one of Jake's ancestors is more like a wizard than Jake, which means that he has at least a little magic, then he may have interbred with wizards, and my argument is completely broken.
Let's look at E, translate it, "The similarity between Muggles and wizards in magic must and can only come from interbreeding." Uh, it seems that it is not necessarily? Because I also know that some magic props can make Muggles have magic. Option E denies the behavior of other talented guys to make Muggles have magic, which makes E not a necessary condition.
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 struggled to understand exactly why E was incorrect for a while as well, but here’s what helped clarify JY’s explanation for me:
E is wrong because of two words: “Any similarity in the DNA of two species must be the result of interbreeding.”
So basically, it’s saying, “100% of the similarity in the DNA of two species is always the result of interbreeding,” which is pretty extreme.
If we try the negation test, we can do it in multiple ways, but here are two: “Any similarity in the DNA of two species doesn’t have to be the result of interbreeding.” or “Not all similarities in the DNA of two species must be the result of interbreeding.”
So when E is negated, the argument doesn’t completely fall apart - the argument is still valid without the assumption that 100% of the similarity in the DNA of two species results from interbreeding.
For example, maybe 99% of the similarity in DNA is the result of interbreeding, and 1% is just from some other random factor. Not all the similarity might be from interbreeding, but we can still reasonably use the comparison of the two DNA’s as a premise in this argument.
Hope this helps!