Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.5K All Categories
- 27.4K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 16 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 595 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
PT67.S2.Q20 - astronomer: earth was bombarded
Columbia Bound
Member
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-2-question-20/
I am having a lot of trouble seeing how C and D are not saying the same exact thing. Here is how I broke down the structure of the argument.
Premise: Mars escaped severe bombardment by asteroids.
Major Premise/Minor Conclusion: There could have been microbial life on Mars prior to there being such life on Earth.
Premise: Many meteorites originating from Mars have landed on Earth.
Conclusion: Life on Earth may have started when a meteorite carrying living microbes were carried here from Mars.
Most explanations for this question say that D is wrong because it does not establish the truth of the main conclusion, saying that just because there was life on Mars does not guarantee that a meteorite carried life from Mars to Earth. But the thing I am having trouble understanding is that both the minor conclusion and major conclusion account for the possibility that they are not true by using could/may. So in order for the both conclusions to be true, all you would need to show is that it is possible.
After all, if the minor conclusion is true, if there is a possibility that there was microbial life on Mars, isn't it certainly true that this allows for the possibility for a meteor to carry such life to Earth (which is what the main conclusion is).
I am having a lot of trouble seeing how C and D are not saying the same exact thing. Here is how I broke down the structure of the argument.
Premise: Mars escaped severe bombardment by asteroids.
Major Premise/Minor Conclusion: There could have been microbial life on Mars prior to there being such life on Earth.
Premise: Many meteorites originating from Mars have landed on Earth.
Conclusion: Life on Earth may have started when a meteorite carrying living microbes were carried here from Mars.
Most explanations for this question say that D is wrong because it does not establish the truth of the main conclusion, saying that just because there was life on Mars does not guarantee that a meteorite carried life from Mars to Earth. But the thing I am having trouble understanding is that both the minor conclusion and major conclusion account for the possibility that they are not true by using could/may. So in order for the both conclusions to be true, all you would need to show is that it is possible.
After all, if the minor conclusion is true, if there is a possibility that there was microbial life on Mars, isn't it certainly true that this allows for the possibility for a meteor to carry such life to Earth (which is what the main conclusion is).
Comments
Also C says "establishes the conclusion" while D says "establishes the truth of the conclusion". Once again, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two. If you establish a conclusion doesn't that make it true?