PT 89.S2.Q7 - Dire wolves

Ashley2018-1

After reading this stimulus, I thought the author was assuming the dire wolves were trapped in the tar pits while hunting and scavenging. Is that correct? I was confused about the use of language in answer choice D; what does most frequently actually mean? I tried negating it and it still didn't strike me as correct? Is "most frequently" synonymous with typically or usually?

Help.

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-07/

canihazJD

Yes. Most frequently, most often, mostly, more often than not, etc. So if entrapment happened mostly when they weren't hunting, you'd have no reason to conclude pups didn't go hunting based on the lack of fossils.

89.2.7 for anyone else wanting to take a look.

Ashley2018-1

Oh. I think I misread this choice. So D is saying dire wolves didn't typically get trapped in tar pits when they were scavenging and hunting
so typically, usually is synonymous with most of the time in terms of modality? this is confusing

canihazJD

D. The entrapment of direwolves in the tar pits most frequently occurred when those animals were scavenging or hunting.

When they got trapped, it was typically when they were hunting/scavenging.

If this wasn't so, saying pups didn't go hunting/scavenging would make no sense... like it would just come out of nowhere.

Ashley2018-1

eh because I interpreted "most frequently" as most often so I was thinking it could have been sometimes or rarely but they still got trapped in the pits while hunting and scavenging
that is wrong, right?

canihazJD

most often is fine... so "when direwolves got trapped in the pits it they were most often hunting/scavenging."

When they got trapped in the pits they were usually hunting/scavenging.

Maybe sometimes they didn't... like maybe they got spooked by something and ran into the tar pits once and got trapped, but usually when you find direwolf fossils trapped in the tar pit, they were there because they were hunting.

Ashley2018-1

No but that is why I got this question wrong
I thought when negated, it said when the dire wolves were trapped happen in the tar pits, it did not most frequently when they were hunting and scavenging meaning it sometimes did so I thought it strengthened the argument since it tied Hunting scavenging more closely with being trapped in tar pits

canihazJD

I think the issue is what you think the effect of the negation is on the argument. If

I thought when negated, it said:

when the dire wolves were trapped happen in the tar pits, it did not most frequently when they were hunting and scavenging

That's fine.

meaning it sometimes did

That's fine too.

so I thought it strengthened the argument since it tied Hunting scavenging more closely with being trapped in tar pits.

That's not ok.

So sometimes they got trapped while hunting - in other words hunting is one of several activities they did that caused them to become trapped. How would that lead us to conclude the fossils we found without pups were in fact hunting, therefore they hunted without pups? It doesn't. It would be just as, if not more likely they were doing some other activity.

We find fossils
We see there are no pups
(We assume that the fossilized direwolves likely hunting)
We conclude pups didnt go hunting

This is good.

We find fossils
We see there are no pups
(We assume that hunting is one of many things they could have been doing to become trapped)
We conclude pups didnt go hunting

That's not good.

Ashley2018-1

Could I get this straight? Does D destroy the argument or just make it not necessarily true? that the dire wolf pups under 6 months didn't accompany their pack for hunts

canihazJD

D. is necessary.
D. negated "destroys" the argument.

Only adult fossils in tar pits.
pups probably didn't accompany adults scavenging or hunting.

D. gives you a reason to even mention let alone conclude hunting/scavenging.
D. negated gives you a reason to exclude it.

It's not that negating it makes the conclusion impossible or not necessarily true. It's that the conclusion would no longer follow from the premises.

Ashley2018-1

I think the reason why I found d difficult to pick was because the conclusion said "probably" so it leaves open the possibility that the pups did accompany the adults for hunting so even if there was a chance hunting/scavenging was excluded from the reasons why the wolves got stuck in the pits, it wouldn't destroy, only weaken....is this whole way of thinking incorrect?

canihazJD

Destroying the argument doesn't mean to render the conclusion impossible. It means that the conclusion no longer follows from the premises. When negating D to check, it's fine that it's still possible, or even that the conclusion might end up being true anyway for some other reason. But based on the specific argument presented, with D negated, it does just not follow.

Ashley2018-1

So the conclusion is that the pups probably didn't accompany adults while they were hunting and scavenging because none of the bones in the tar pits came from pups under six months old.

The gap in the argument is the assumption that these wolves got trapped in the pits while hunting/scavenging and D destroys the argument because if the wolves "most frequently" (usually, most of the time, not sometimes) got trapped in the pits while they doing other things, then you can't conclude the pups weren't with them. Perhaps the pups were hunting/scavenging with them despite the bones not being there; there's just no evidence of it happening (bones left behind)

how's that?

canihazJD

@"ashley.tien" said:
So the conclusion is that the pups probably didn't accompany adults while they were hunting and scavenging because none of the bones in the tar pits came from pups under six months old.

The gap in the argument is the assumption that these wolves got trapped in the pits while hunting/scavenging and D destroys the argument (when negated) because if the wolves "most frequently" (usually, most of the time, not sometimes) got trapped in the pits while they doing other things, then you can't conclude the pups weren't with them (when scavenging or hunting). Perhaps the pups were hunting/scavenging with them despite the bones not being there; there's just no evidence of it happening (bones left behind). Yes in which case the conclusion is not longer supported.

how's that?

Added some comments but looks good to me!

Here's a more simplified version:

At this spot in the forest, there are a bunch of adult footprints, but no child footprints.
Therefore, children rarely accompany these adults when they go camping.

Assumption: footprints were made by campers