PT76.S4.Q18 Hairless dogs

megameghamegamegha Alum Member
edited August 2021 in Logical Reasoning 29 karma

If answer choice (A) is not true, that does wreck the argument. Let's assume that the hairless dogs were found in Spain - then why could it not be that they were transported from Spain to both Peru and Mexico? It really does *not" have to be true that the dogs were transported from either of Peru/Mexico to the other (regardless of whether by boat or land).

Any insights welcome!

help.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-18/

Comments

  • McBeck418McBeck418 Member
    500 karma

    I tend to see NA questions as if the conclusion is true, what must be true.

    In this case, knowing that there are a few examples of hairless dogs in other countries doesn't preclude the notion that these dogs must have traveled between Peru and Mexico exclusively. Me bringing some dogs to Spain doesn't mean that someone in Spain then turned around and brought them to Peru. It doesn't make our conclusion wrong.

    Initially I dismissed E because it was a value judgment, but the whole argument here hinges on that value judgment. Dogs must have travelled by boat because traveling over land was extremely difficult. It must be the case that traveling by boat was at least somewhat easier than traveling by land. Otherwise, they wouldn't use boats and whole argument breaks down.

  • WinningHereWinningHere Member
    417 karma

    E is correct because the author needs this to be true in order to have his argument. If the dogs were able to travel by some other means than by boat, or did in fact occur on separate occasions or whatever, it would hurt the argument.

Sign In or Register to comment.