PT48.S4.Q26 - Researcher: It is commonly believed

Comments

• 1 Like

  Sami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2016 edited October 2016 10774 karma

  I think the problem with answer choice "C" is that it's not actually saying that non-rodent species that were selected are not representative. Its saying "Many", so maybe 2 species don't have that specific cell structures. But what if most of them do have that specific cell structures. That would make the sample representative.
  
  Also, I think this question is very similar to the Polar Bear question. PT 32 Sec 1 Q.12. In that stimulus you are given a definition of Navigation. Then information about polar bears. The the conclusion is the polar bear is navigating, LSAC writers wrote this in a fancy way ofcourse. The flaw with these type of questions is that we don't know if the information is applicable to the original criteria in this case navigation. So in order to weaken the stimulus the right answer will say that the information given has something in it that does not match the original criteria of navigation.
  
  Similarly, in this question we are given the definition of common ancestor. But then we are given information about genetic pattern. The conclusion is that this test reveals something about common ancestor. To weaken it , just like the previous example, you want to say something about genetic pattern doesn't really tell us about common ancestor. Answer choice B basically says that there is no relationship between common ancestor and genetic pattern.
  
  Sorry if this was too long. I personally find it helpful to see patterns in LSAT questions.
• Barack Obama 2.0 Alum Member

  October 2016 edited October 2016 87 karma

  Ah thanks a lot for your response Motivated! The huge gap in this argument seems to be that genetic similarities between organism is indicative of whether they share a common ancestor, B weakens the argument by contradicting this assumption. As to answer choice (C), Even if we conceded that the non-rodents the researcher is speaking of were not representative and we assumed that cell structures were in some way relevant to genetics it still wouldn't argument, it is still not clear how it would affect the reasoning of the argument. Assuming (1) that mice also have these same cell structures (2) Again that cell structures were relevant to genetics, at best (C) boosts (albeit slightly ) the premise that "some non rodents have the similar genetic differences as mice". Just overall a terrible choice. What do cell structures have to do with genetic similarities? Like I said even if we assumed tat they were relevant to one another, it still does nothing to exacerbate the reasoning in the argument. In all (C) just requires way too much conjecture and additional assumptions to even be considered.
  
  
  Is my reasoning off on this one or good? Please tell me if I am overlooking something.