Strengthen EXCEPT questions - eliminating answers (PT37.S2.Q20 in particular)

Wind-Up Bird

For "strengthen EXCEPT" questions, should I be eliminating anything that could possibly strengthen, despite having to make large assumptions to do so? Conversely, will the correct/except choice be fully irrelevant and/or weaken?

For example, in PT37.S2.Q20, I was 50/50 between B and D after I noticed that B was talking about oxygen and not oxygenated blood, but I completely fell for D...

I initially overlooked B after making the assumption that the capacity to store oxygen in some part of the body could possibly strengthen the hypothesis that seals could store oxygenated blood in spleens for long dives.

Granted, D distinguishes some property of seals from other aquatic mammals that don't dive long, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that larger has something to do with storing more oxygenated blood? Heck, having a larger spleen could just be a result of being a big animal.

Thanks.

leejaylee

For Strengthen EXCEPT questions, you should have 4 choices that strengthen in some form, or way. Think of them as: Another reason to believe the conclusion stated in the stimulus.

The actual answer choice can either be: Weakening, irrelevant, neither weakening nor strengthening, and some other answer choice the LSAT can screw around with.

For this question, I was actually stuck between A and B because I was like what does a horse have to do with this passage, but realized B was more irrelevant to the stimulus.

D actually strengthens our conclusion because it's basically saying that the larger spleen allows the Antarctic seals to stay submerged for longer than other aquatic animals. Remember that the question stem says SOME support. This answer choice clearly has SOME support for the conclusion. It may have a little bit of an assumption, but still, it's a better support answer choice than B or even A.

Hope that helps!

allison.gill.sanford

@KafkaByTheSea I would be pretty careful about concluding that you have to make "large assumptions" to eliminate the other answer choices. You might miss out on what this question can teach you if you maintain that position.

Lots of people dislike this question, and I get that some things (being a horse, having a large spleen) seem pretty neutral to the core support structure that 4 of the ACs supposedly bolster. However, you have to note that as @leejaylee said, we're only looking for SOME support, it doesn't need to be very good. Additionally, if you want to think of this in terms of permitted assumptions, compare the type of leap required by A or D with the type of leap you would need to make B strengthen.

A requires that you infer that the existence of a trait in another animal gives some minimal support for the possibility of that trait in a separate part of the animal kingdom (antarctic seals).

D requires that you compare spleen size not generally, but specifically amongst aquatic animals, and suggests a correlation between larger spleen size and dive depth. You have to make a leap, but it's pretty minor.

B, which is of course our winner... I don't even know how you could make an assumption that would turn this into a something that actually strengthens the argument. Maybe if you assumed the spleen is a muscle (which is of course is not). That is a much bigger leap.

Hope this provides some additional clarification!