PT76.S2.Q21 - Although the first humans came to Australia

Comments

• BlindReviewer Alum Member

  March 2019 855 karma

  This was a pretty tough question, especially if you don't grasp the flaw really well before going into the answer choices (I had to read the stimulus and go back into the answer choices after looking at it first).

  This is a part/whole or individual/group confusion, but more unique than the typical "the group has this element so each individual also has this element." The flaw here is that because no single individual can accomplish a task on its own, that the group as a whole can't accomplish it. The way the flaw manifests itself in the stimulus is so absurd, and I think the absurdity is what makes it hard to spot.

  The argument is saying that because no individual disease could wipe out all the dinosaurs, that this collection of diseases couldn't wipe them out either. It's one of those arguments that are so bad that it's hard to spot. And the issue is, you can't just rely on a basic structural understanding because the correct answer choice, B, just shows the flaw but doesn't resemble it as well aesthetically. I think C resembles the stimulus more in subject matter, but that made me a little skeptical.

  B is the right answer because it's saying that because neither person A or person B can accomplish both tasks by themselves, that they couldn't accomplish it together. That makes no sense because maybe person A can accomplish one task and person B can accomplish the other, or, by some kind of chemistry, they just work really well together and can figure things out.

  C resembles the stimulus, but it's actually kind of backwards. If we put it into disease/dinosaur terms, C is saying that because diseases A, B, and C all don't overlap in their individual ability to kill a single type of dinosaur, that it's likely that together they can't kill that dinosaur. This is backwards because the one specific "universal" thing here is the dinosaur rather than a single disease, and the "many" things here are the diseases rather than the dinosaurs. Furthermore, C is, I think, a good argument (more so in the actual situation with the friends and picking a place for dinner). If all three of these individuals don't have something in common, then it's likely that they won't be able to do something that requires them to have something in common.

  But you see structurally, C matches the stimulus really well, with the components (many things and one thing) and "probably" as the conclusion. It's a hard question!
• BlindReviewer Alum Member

  March 2019 855 karma

  Just to follow up on why C is wrong -- JY's video does a really good explanation of showing two ways of drawing the analogy between the friends/restaurants and diseases/dinosaurs (I only show one). He also emphasizes just the weirdness of the conclusion, which is that the friends will probably go home -- it throws you off because you just don't really know what to do with it, but the other answer choices are also not great so the LSAT writers are hoping you'll pick C for cosmetic reasons.
• cqas190517 Alum Member 🍌

  March 2019 535 karma

  @BlindReviewer said:
  Just to follow up on why C is wrong -- JY's video does a really good explanation of showing two ways of drawing the analogy between the friends/restaurants and diseases/dinosaurs (I only show one). He also emphasizes just the weirdness of the conclusion, which is that the friends will probably go home -- it throws you off because you just don't really know what to do with it, but the other answer choices are also not great so the LSAT writers are hoping you'll pick C for cosmetic reasons.

  Super. Great wrap up! You really made the connection well- thanks for taking the time to explain this bananas ass question to me