PT80.S4.Q22-- scientists once believed that

DarklordDarklord Alum Member
edited September 2020 in Logical Reasoning 586 karma

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B is right here?
It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it has T-rex features but small size. However, when I tried to flesh this explanation out, it just didn't seem to work:
if the dinosaur is really old, it strengthens the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small
if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

Thus, even though it does provide an explanation for the phenomena seen in the argument, I don't see how the dinosaur being a baby would provide an alternative explanation that could weaken the stimulus' argument when the argument never gave an explanation for the phenomena in the first place.

Hope that makes sense to people reading this
Any #help would be appreciated!
Thanks!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • Nomads PoemNomads Poem Alum Member
    89 karma

    This question actually confused me too so I arrived at the answer by POE on timed practice.
    I hope I can think this through with you.

    So the argument is saying:
    1) Scientists assumed characteristics were to accommodate SIZE and WEIGHT
    2) Another specimen found with SAME characteristics but different size and weight
    ..... Concludes from those facts that the belief must be abandoned.

    This would be an argument based on counterexample. (It's not true that size/weight --> characteristic because here is an example of something with NOT that size --> but same characteristic)

    Any time you compare two things, they have to be similar in relevant and significant ways.
    This argument seems to be assuming that they are indeed similar, and that SIZE is a significant DIFFERENCE between the two dinosaurs.

    For Evaluate questions, I personally tend to treat it like Weaken questions ... so I thought well what if the size isn't a significant difference after all?

    That's where answer choice (B) brings in an explanation to this size difference.

    You said: "if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small"

    But if it died early in its life, we actually are given an example of a dinosaur is small BUT COULD HAVE GROWN LARGER. We have room to think it may have grown to T.Rex size if it didn't die so early.
    This would WEAKEN the argument.

    If it died late in its life, it would strengthen the argument because we have reason to believe this argument that size difference is legitimate and to abandon scientists' belief.

    Does this make sense? Let me know if I can clarify anything!

  • DarklordDarklord Alum Member
    586 karma

    This makes a lot of sense! Thank you @"Nomads Poem" !

Sign In or Register to comment.