PT1.S3.Q21 - the energy an animal

Comments

• brna0714 Alum Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 1489 karma

  It appears to me that, "this is the reason that..." can be thought of as conclusion indicator in this case. The first sentence in the stimulus is used to explain or support the second sentence in the stimulus. With that in mind, the argument requires answer choice C. I discovered this via the negation test. If the ratio of surface area to body weight was not smaller (smaller meaning less surface area relative to body weight) in larger animals, then the the premise could not be used to support the conclusion.
• WillJayK Alum Member

  April 2015 163 karma

  @brna0714 in the first place i thought in the same way as you analyzed premise and conclusion. What confused me though was when I recalled questions like
  
  PrepTest 7 - February 1993 LSAT Answers & Explanations - LR » Section #1, (https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q23-defendants-who-can-afford-t2020.html)
  
  It has exactly the same stimulus structure with this question yet those in the forum explained that if there are certain
  1) Observed Phenomenon
  and
  2) Explanation
  
  2) Explanation has to be deemed as conclusion from the viewpoint of those formulating arguments because 2) Explanation is elicited from the 1) Observed Phenomenon.
  
  In the same respect, I thought it would be better to see the explanation in the stimulus (Weight proportional to energy output and surface area to energy output) as conclusion, but this time the manhattan forum explained it in the opposite way!!!
  (https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q21-the-energy-an-animal-t5496.html?sid=d62761d419f9fecb002b7c33f0af9aaa)
  
  It seems to me that reversing the premise-conclusion sequence in this question will not necessarily change the gap between them, which means it may not affect problem-solving process much, but i wanted to double-check on the stimulus-structure.
• WillJayK Alum Member

  April 2015 163 karma

  Help needed!
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 7965 karma

  @william.j.kwon We're not trying to ignore you—my guess is that PT1 is a test to which many people simply don't have access. It's not currently in print and given that individual PT's cost a minimum of $5 each, we have to conserve resources (and tests that early are generally not the primary targets for a lot of us).
• WillJayK Alum Member

  April 2015 163 karma

  @nicole.hopkins Thanks for the comment!
• 1 Like

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 7965 karma

  We would LOVE to help and learn more ourselves!!!
• 1 Like

  brna0714 Alum Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 1489 karma

  If anyone has the Cambridge Packets, it's #152 in the Necessary Assumption packet.
• 3 Likes

  Nilesh S Alum Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 edited April 2015 3438 karma

  @william.j.kwon Ok so I just saw this... and I have the out of Print LSATs... so I'll take a stab at this... I'm assuming that the only thing you are concerned with is the premise conclusion structure and not an explanation of the actual answer so here are my two cents on the same... you have it right that he author here is providing support via his discussion of weight and surface area in explaining the observations about squirrels and large animals. But here is how I see it... there are three ways to Identify premises and conclusions:
  
  1) You have to ask yourself, what does the author want you to believe?
  2) Premises SUPPORT the Conclusion... i.e. the Conclusion is the part that is SUPPORTED...
  3) there are also indicators that explain premises and conclusions
  
  (1)I feel that the author wants us to believe that THE REASON that explains the squirrels and large animals thing is the weight and surface area energy output.
  (2)Moreover, while you could probably make a stretchy argument for the alternate position it is very much the case that the energy output explanation SUPPORTS the theory as to why squirrels travel faster than larger animals when running upwards.
  (3) "This is the reason that" is the indicator that precedes the squirrel and large animal sentence which is a conclusion indicator similar to "that is why" and the like.
  
  Based on all these three things, I feel that you have your understanding of the premise and conclusion reversed with respect to this particular question. I hope this helps!!!
  
• 2 Likes

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 7965 karma

  @"Nilesh S" to the rescue!
• WillJayK Alum Member

  April 2015 163 karma

  @"Nilesh S" Thanks for the detailed commment! I hope i am not getting too obstinate but here is how i see it. I would be more than glad if you could correct my train of thought on possible misleading points.
  
  1) You have to ask yourself, what does the author want you to believe?
  
  I believe the author wants to assert that his explanation (animal energy requirement in relation to bodyweight and surface area) IS THE VERY REASON that a certain phenomenon like described in the second sentence takes place.
  From the viewpoint of reorganizing phenomenon, it is logical to say that his explanation supports (or constitutes the origin of ) the phenomenon that appeared in the second sentence, as you said. Yet from the perspective of the author, the explanation will be the very point he would like to make in formulating the whole argument.
  
  Here is my example.
  
  Phenomenon : An apple fell from the tree.
  
  Posited explanation from scientist A : The gravitational pull created by the white walkers make apples fall from trees.
  
  If we presuppose the validity of both phenomenon and posited explanation, we must say his suggested explanation SUPPORTS the phenomenon. But it does not mean that the phenomenon is the point that he would like to make. The author wants to argue that his explanation is the very reason behind the phenomenon, making his explanation the conclusion of his argument.
  
  It seems that i am clinging to the structure of
  Observation (Premise) --> Explanation (Conclusion)
  structure from (https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q23-defendants-who-can-afford-t2020.html)
  
  Again, thank you for your assistance and everything in the forum!
  
  (hope i am not bothering too much..)
  
  
  
• 1 Like

  Nilesh S Alum Inactive ⭐

  April 2015 edited April 2015 3438 karma

  NP @william.j.kwon take a look at this lesson: http://7sage.com/lesson/premise-conclusion/
  
  As JY points out there: The definition of premise is "a sentence which supports another sentence". That for me would be first principle... in that it is a foundational proposition which cannot be deduced from elsewhere... you're going to have to go on faith with this one. Similarly, as he points out, the definition of conclusion is “a sentence which is supported by another sentence" again - first principles - you will have to go on faith here as well.
  
  There are 2 sentences in Q 21. One supports the other. The sentence providing the support is the premise. The one being supported therefore is what is left... which is the conclusion. How now do you determine which sentence provides the support and which sentence is supported?
  
  Allow me to look at it this way: Why should I believe that the energy an animal must expend to move uphill is.... whereas the energy output to perform this task is proportional to the surface area? Is is BECAUSE squirrels move as fast up a tree as they do when moving on level ground whereas large animals slow down moving uphill? the answer is a resounding NO... therefore is the "squirrel - large animal" sentence providing ANY support to the "surface area - energy sentence"? NO... therefore, going by the definition given in the lesson above, can it be a premise? NO
  
  Now let us look at the alternative:
  Why should I believe that squirrels move as fast up a tree as they do when moving on level ground whereas large animals slow down moving uphill? Is it because of the surface area- energy explanation? Yes - As you yourself acknowledge, the first sentence EXPLAINS and provides support for the second... thus, by definition, it is the PREMISE... and the second sentence, i.e. the one that is supported, is by definition the conclusion.
  
  Helps more?
  
• 1 Like

  WillJayK Alum Member

  April 2015 edited April 2015 163 karma

  @"Nilesh S" Wow. Thank you so much. Sticking to the definition of premise and conclusion clarifies pretty much everything on what I was confused about. (Though i may have to throw few more additional questions in the framework of observation-explanation). Billion thanks!!!