PT19.S2.Q04 - scientists analyzing air bubbles

lenelson2lenelson2 Member
edited February 2017 in Logical Reasoning 523 karma

The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D because if diatoms weren't the only type of Antarctic algae then this answer choice isn't as relevant. Thanks for any input.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

Comments

  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma

    Please format your questions about specific PTs like mentioned in the forum rules:
    https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

    I've edited your post to reflect the rules.

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma

    @lenelson2 said:
    The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D because if diatoms weren't the only type of Antarctic algae then this answer choice isn't as relevant. Thanks for any input.
    https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

    Hey so it definitely means some of the Antarctic Algae are diatoms.

    But our job for this stimulus is to weaken our argument. Which means any answer choice that weakens the argument by even 1% is the correct answer.

    Even though Diatoms are not the only type of algae the conclusion stated that Diatom's population should have increased as a result of ferrous material. But answer choice "D" is stating that another evidence shows that Diatoms population did not increase. This definitely weakens the argument by saying that the proposed effect of the increase in population of Diatoms did not occur according to a certain type of evidence. Therefore, now our conclusion that an increase in population of algae such as diatoms had occurred is no longer as strong because another piece of evidence, sediments from the floor showed no such increase.

    Let me know if this helped.

  • lenelson2lenelson2 Member
    523 karma

    @Sami thank you so much for your response! Very helpful.

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma

    @lenelson2 said:
    @Sami thank you so much for your response! Very helpful.

    My pleasure <3

  • helentang02helentang02 Alum Member
    246 karma

    Hi here's my super simplified explanation:

    The goal & right answer will weaken the hypothesis.

    The hypothesis is that the ferrous material caused an increase in algae.

    So regardless of amount, if you make D TRUE then it would absolutely weaken the theory.
    It would reject that there was not an increase in Algae at all. In the stimulus, the conclusion "smh as diatoms" is a statement to simply state that Diatoms also had increased. Not to express that there is a certain amount of breeds (or wtv you call different types of algae) and within each breed there was an amount of increase. We don't care about type of algae only that there was an INCREASE in algae.

    Here is also how I approached the questions.

    Premise: Last Ice Age < Ferrous material and > C02
    Premise: Algae absorbs C02
    Conclusion: Ferrous material -> Increase Algae

    Anticipation: The answer should EITHER provide an alternate explanation (stating something in regards to another reason besides ferrous material causing increase of Algae, etc.) or violate the argument if true (stating something in regards to there wasn't an increase, etc.)

    Remember the answer is taken as TRUE. If it's true what does it do to the argument? It better weaken that shittttttt.

    A. Irrelevant. Changed or unchanged doesn't matter. If this were true it doesn't do anything to weaken the argument as to why there's an increase to Algae since the Ice Age.

    B. Irrelevant. We don't care about today's finds.

    C. Irrelevant. That's cool that there were other minerals. But if this were true it still wouldn't weaken the argument because there could be 5million types of minerals and if there is an increase of Algae it still could be true and well it just doesn't do anything to weaken the hypothesis/argument.

    D. Good. First off, they state something that happens "DURING the ice age" which is a good indicator. Okay so, if this were true then it would mean that there wasn't a lot of Diatoms/algae. Automatically weakening the argument. Because you take it as true, if Diatoms die there will be shells left. If there wasn't an increase of those shells that that means that there was NOT an increase of Algae. (regardless of kind)

    E. Irrelevant. We don't care about today or what is or not being harmed.

    Again, someone please correct me if my though process was incorrect!

Sign In or Register to comment.