PT9.S2.Q11 - Recently discovered fossil evidence casts doubt

Comments

• Prudenter Discere Alum Member

  April 2019 234 karma

  Hey Courtney,
  I'll do my best attempt.
  The conclusion of the argument is that recently discovered fossil evidence cast doubt on evolutionary theory that dinosaurs are closer to reptiles than other classes of animals.
  Why? A phenomenon (a fact observed or existence of something), is closely related to present phenomenon that has certain correlations.
  The phenomenon is that fossils show that some dinosaurs had hollow bones.
  1. Today, only warm blooded creatures have hollow bones - (present day correlation of this phenomenon)
  2. Dinosaur had well developed sense of sight and hearing (another phenomenon) --> (no correlation with present day cold blooded reptiles) - This is phenomenon that casts the most doubt that dinosaurs are closer to reptiles.
  3. dinosaurs arched mouth roof allowed it breath and eat, thus fast breathing animals (present day correlation of this phenomenon of warm blooded animals)

  The argument is flawed in the sense that it assumes that all reptiles have always been cold blooded, and that similar traits in the past and present is sufficient enough to establish that an animal is closely related.

  I want to note that this question is very old, and that it is phrased in a way that is not as clear, I mostly got this answer through process of elimination versus finding the reasoning method. Because a better explanation of the reasoning method would have been that the author presents evidence showing a past and present phenomenon is closely correlated with present day warm blooded animals than present day cold blooded animals.

  I'd love to also get somewhere to share their thoughts
• HopefullyHLS Member

  May 2021 edited May 2021 445 karma

  Why is B wrong? Isn't "all fast-breathing animals are warm-blooded" not a general principle that is used to draw a conclusion (=doubt whether dinosaurs are more similar to reptiles than to other classes of animals) about a particular case (=dinosaurs)?

  @Juliet-- @JY or someone else, could you please shed light on this, since there is no explanation video?
• cwrussell42 Member

  May 2021 17 karma

  That's not how the argument proceeds, that's just one component of the argument. The whole passage is repeatedly saying "this aspect of dinosaurs is like warm-blooded creatures/birds and not like cold-blooded creatures like reptiles". B is a thing that the passage does, but it is not how the argument in the passage proceeds.
• 2 Likes

  KevinLuminateLSAT Alum Member

  May 2021 983 karma

  @HopefullyHLS
  The premise you're pointing to says "Today, all fast-breathing animals are warm-blooded." If this argument were using this principle to "draw a conclusion about a particular case", the argument would then bring up a particular kind of fast-breathing animal today and then draw the conclusion that that animal is warm-blooded.

  But notice how the argument in this question is doing something different. The dinosaurs it talks about it are not an example of a fast-breathing animal today; they are an example of an animal from the past that had certain features ("highly arched mouth roof") that allowed for a kind of breathing that some fast-breathing animals today can do (breathing while eating).

  Although it's clear that the author is suggesting that dinosaurs may have been fast-breathing, the author isn't saying that this means they fall under the scope of the principle about fast-breathing animals today and that therefore they must be warm-blooded. In other words, the author is not trying to say that dinosaurs are a "particular case" of the larger category "fast-breathing animals today". Rather, the author is using the fact that fast-breathing animals today are warm-blooded to suggest that a similar group—fast-breathing animals of the past, such as (potentially) dinosaurs—may have been similarly warm-blooded.

  Consider this example argument:

  Today, doctors are highly respected in society.
  5,000 years ago, shamans in a Neanderthal tribe were essentially doctors.
  Thus, Neanderthal shamans were highly respected in their society.

  Is this argument using the general principle in the first sentence to apply to the particular case of Neanderthal shamans? No - the author isn't suggesting that caveman shaman fall into the category of today's doctors. The author is using the fact about today's doctors to suggest that a similar group—Neanderthal shaman—also shares the same characteristic (being highly respected).