LSAT 102 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 08

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:56

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Analogy +An
A
1%
161
B
2%
161
C
95%
165
D
2%
153
E
0%
160
120
130
141
 +Easiest 147.613 +SubsectionMedium

Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws of modern tree-dwelling birds enables them to perch in trees. The claws of Archeopteryx, the earliest known birdlike creature, show similar curvature that must have enabled the creature to perch on tree limbs. Therefore, Archeopteryx was probably a tree-dwelling creature.

Paleontologist: No, the ability to perch in trees is not good evidence that Archeopteryx was a tree-dwelling bird. Chickens also spend time perched in trees, yet chickens are primarily ground-dwelling.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The paleontologist concludes that, contrary to the ornithologist’s hypothesis, Archeopteryx may not have been a tree-dwelling bird. As evidence, the paleontologist points out that chickens spend time perched in trees, but are primarily ground-dwelling birds.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The paleontologist points out a weakness in the ornithologist’s hypothesis by presenting an analogy. By stating chickens are primarily ground-dwelling birds, the paleontologist shows that having curved claws is not sufficient evidence to conclude a bird is tree-dwelling.

A
questions the qualifications of the ornithologist to evaluate the evidence
The paleontologist never questions the ornithologist’s qualifications. Rather, the paleontologist simply claims that the ornithologist’s evidence is not sufficient.
B
denies the truth of the claims the ornithologist makes in support of the hypothesis
The paleontologist does not deny the truth of the ornithologist’s evidence. The paleontologist does not deny that curved claws enable birds to perch in trees, nor does he deny that Archeopteryx could perch in trees.
C
uses a parallel case to illustrate a weakness in the ornithologist’s argument
The parallel case the paleontologist uses is the case of chickens. Chickens have curved claws and can perch themselves in trees, but are primarily ground-dwelling birds.
D
shows that the hypothesis contradicts one of the pieces of evidence used to support it
The paleontologist does not claim that the ornithologist’s hypothesis contradicts a premise. Rather, the paleontologist claims that the ornithologist’s premises are not sufficient to support their hypothesis.
E
provides additional evidence to support the ornithologist’s argument
The paleontologist does not support the ornithologist’s argument. The paleontologist begins by denying the sufficiency of the ornithologist’s evidence.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply