PT52.S3.Q19 - one theory to explain the sudden

Accounts Playable

Damn, PT52 has some pretty tough LR sections, and even after a retake, I missed many of the same question again (like this one). I don't see how answer A weakens the argument nor how B doesn't.

Link: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-19

One theory that explains dinosaur extinction is that the dinos OD'd. Angiosperms have psychoactive agents in them. Most plant-eating mammals avoid them since they taste bitter. Mammals also have livers that detoxify the drugs. On the other hand, dinos couldn't taste the bitterness nor detoxify the plant. Lastly, this theory explains why so many dinosaurs were found in weird positions in the fossils.

What I am looking for: Did the dinosaurs actually eat the plants? What if some other theory (like an asteroid) explains the sudden extinction better? Also, we don't even know if the plants were bad for the dinosaurs; we know that angiosperms are bad for some mammals, but what if they were net healthy for dinosaurs? Sure, dinosaurs couldn't detoxify the psychoactive agent (which is bad), but what if the angiosperms provided such large amount of nutrients and other good stuff, that it was worth eating still? Also, we have no evidence that the comparison between the mammals and dinosaurs is even a good comparison; what if the two are so different physiologically any comparison doesn't hold? There is so much wrong with this argument.

Answer A: I just don't see how this weakens the argument. First, it's incredibly weak: we found 1 fossil of a large mammal in a contorted position. But so what? What does this have to do with dinosaurs? Even if you take this to the other extreme: 1 million large mammals were found in contorted positions, you still have the same issue. It doesn't shed any light on what happened to the dinosaurs. Second, the passage never even talks about "large mammals," and the comparison to the mammals in the passage is dubious already, so I don't see how adding this potential third group of mammals to the argument weakens anything.

Answer B: This is what I picked (and I chose this during both my takes of this exam, and kept it both times during BR). Doesn't this point out one of the things I anticipated? If angiosperms provide nutrition, then doesn't this mean they may have actually been GOOD for dinosaurs? In my mind, this not only weakens the argument, but it strongly does so.

Answer C: I think this strengthens the theory. This shows that not only vegetarian dinosaurs ate the angiosperms, but also the meat eating dinosaurs indirectly did as well (which could account for the fact that theory explains the extinction of ALL dinosaurs).

Answer OK, but we are talking about angiosperms only. So what if poison ivy doesn't have this stuff in it? This is entirely irrelevant.

Answer E: I think this also strengthens the argument. This shows us that it's possible that animals can actually die from eating angiosperms, so it strengthens the idea that maybe the dinosaurs died from the plant as well. This is a pretty weak strengthener, but it strengthens nonetheless.

Elle2015

I hope that I explain this clearly.

B does not weaken the argument. It's possible for something to be both nutritious (if consumed in small quantities) and deadly (if consumed in high quantities). B does not tell us that angiosperms aren't deadly.

A weakens the argument by hinting at another explanation for why dinosaurs were found in weird positions. The idea is that mammals didn't become extinct due to overdosing on angiosperms (some don't like the bitter taste and/or have livers that can handle it), but many were still found in weird positions - so perhaps there's some other (non-angiosperm) cause that made dinosaurs and large mammal fossils have this position.

Accounts Playable

@Elle2015 Thanks for the response!

I see what you're saying about B, but the fact pattern begins by saying that the dinosaurs became "suddenly extinct," and the angiosperm theory attempts to explain how the dinosaurs became suddenly extinct. But doesn't saying that angiosperms provide nutrition (and a great deal of it) cast at least some doubt that the angiosperms explain the suddenness of the extinction for all dinosaurs? To me, saying something "good" about angiosperms sheds a little doubt (and in this case, VERY little) on the theory.

Also, for answer A, I still don't see how finding non-dinosaurs in contorted positions weakens the argument by providing another explanation. We don't know whether the large mammals in this answer choice became extinct or not nor if finding these non-dinosaurs in contorted positions sheds light on dinosaur extinction. To me, answer A is like saying, "Species X became extinct because humans shot them all. The best piece of evidence for this is due to the fact that the fossils of Species X have bullet-holes in them. But, we found bullet-holes in Species Y fossils too, so it might not be the case that humans killed Species X." It seems like a weird argument that is besides point. Just because you found evidence of contortions in another species doesn't cast doubt on the hypothesis for dinosaurs in my opinion.

runiggyrun

Hi @"Accounts Playable" . I think the key point here regarding B is that it doesn't matter how nutritious something is, if it's deadly poisonous it will kill you (you being a dinosaur that can't detox it).
Maybe belladona berries are chock full of vitamins and antioxidants and all kinds of wonderful stuff, but there will never be a "net positive" effect from eating them, because they are deadly, and death trumps all potential health benefits. If anything, I would think B would strengthen the argument (maybe the dinosaurs saw the mammals enjoying the wonderful nutritious angiosperms and wanted to try them, with disastrous effects).
Also, your analogy with bullet holes is different in a key way from the argument in answer A.
Given the stimulus, we know that mammals wouldn't have been killed by eating angiosperms, because they avoided them and they could detox them even if eaten.
To make your argument with the shot marks analogous, it would have to be something like "we found similar bullet holes in species Y fossils and they weren't caused by humans because there were no humans living in the territory of species Y, so maybe it wasn't the humans that caused the holes and killed species X either.
Additionally, the contorted position is not just mentioned in passing, it is given as a key reason for believing the angiosperm theory -"the theory receives its strongest support from the fact that it helps explain the contorted positions".
So, if you have mammals dead in contorted positions, and you know that it wasn't angiosperms that killed them, maybe something else makes these animals contorted upon death (they are trying to cover their noses to protect themselves from alien toxic fumes, maybe). And there goes the strongest support for the theory, as specified in the argument.

MrSamIam

Good questions, let me see if I can break it down:
-Dino's OD'd on prehistoric LSD
-Author wants to prove why this is the most viable explanation
-They couldn't taste it (so they wouldn't avoid it)
-Liver couldn't defend against it (so it would kill them)
-*Biggest piece of evidence: Position of fossilized bodies
As soon as I read the last one, I thought, "what?! who cares about the position, you never said that the drug would cause funky-body-position-pre-death syndrome." Besides, what if there was a rogue herbivore that decided it didn't want to take anymore crud from the carnivores. So, it went around breaking the bones of all dinosaurs...that would explain the fossilized body position.

A) Perfect. This shows us that the "strongest support" isn't all that strong.
So what? A highly nutritious plant can also be incredibly toxic. Sure you get your Vitamins A-Z, but, you die 30 minutes later.
C) Well that strengthens it...the prehistoric LSD would be passed on.
D) Who cares. This one does.
E) Well isn't that nice...we already knew this.