Some classes of animal are so successful that they spread into virtually every ecosystem...
Answer: the argument is flaw because "what is true of a whole is also true of its constituent elements"
However, It seems to me that the argument is quite valid. All insects are so successful and ants are the most successful among insects, we can conclude that ants are also successful, which means is not a threatened species. I can't find "whole" "part" flaw here. Anyone help me ?
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-17/
Comments
Anyway, another tough question. The flaw here is not about insects vs ants, but rather ants vs species of ants. The stimulus says ants are the most successful of the insects who spread into virtually every ecosystem, but concludes every SPECIES of ant is not a threatened species. The thing you have to realize is that there are many types of ants, which I bet many test takers didn't realize under pressure.
Those LSAC people really know psychology.
I am still confused about "ants vs species of ants". Do all the species of ants belongs to "ants" ? "Ants" itself includes "all the species of ants" ? if not, then the argument is valid. If yes, why species of ants is different from "ants" itself?
This question is a good example.
Paul got it down. The core of the argument is not about ants vs other insects, it is actually about ants vs species of ants.
The flaw is actually a quite common one (whole to part flaw), but the writers really did conceal it well.
For example, the students at Penn generally are quite successful (e.g, they got job at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs etc.) but not every Penn students are successful.(e.g, like me). hahahaha. I got the point.
Anyway, when are you taking preptest 50, we should BR that test together.