Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 635 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
19/2/9
Bertie12
Member
Is it possible to post an explanation for 19/2/9?
Comments
The conclusion is that the A was probably tree dwelling?
How is it supported? The A had claws that enable modern tree dwelling birds to perch in trees.
So, the whole conclusion depends on the type of claws A has, and what the ornithologist knows those claws are used for today. It must be the case, therefore, that the A used those claws or else the only support we have for the conclusion would be gone. This is why B must be assumed. If the A didn't use its claws, we have no basis for concluding what kind of bird A was.