LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 14

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 14

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

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
PT137 S4 Q14
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK
A
1%
155
B
83%
165
C
8%
158
D
3%
156
E
5%
158
138
148
157
 +Medium 146.883 +SubsectionMedium

Astronomer: Does a recent meteorite from Mars contain fossilized bacteria? Professor Tagar, a biologist, argues that the bacteria-like structures found in the meteorite cannot be fossilized bacteria, on the grounds that they are one-tenth of 1 percent the volume of the smallest earthly bacteria. However, Tagar’s view cannot be right. Tagar does not accept the views of biologists Swiderski and Terrada, who maintain that Martian bacteria would shrink to one-tenth of 1 percent of their normal volume when water or other nutrients were in short supply.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The astronomer concludes that the structures found in the meteorite could be bacteria, rejecting Tagar’s claim that they’re too small. The author rejects Tagar’s view because two other biologists hold a differing view that could explain the structures’ small size.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The problem with this argument is that the astronomer gives no reason for siding with Swiderski and Terrada instead of Tagar. In order to prove this conclusion, the argument would need to provide support for Swiderski and Terrada’s claim that bacteria would shrink, but since it doesn’t, the astronomer’s preference for their view is arbitrary. Tagar could have the correct position.

A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the authorities cited have always held the views attributed to them.
This is both irrelevant and descriptively inaccurate. The argument isn’t concerned with what the astronomers believed in the past; only their current views on this issue are referenced.
B
The argument provides no justification for giving preference to the views of one rather than the other of two competing sets of authorities.
This describes how the astronomer chooses to accept Swiderski and Terrada’s position over Tagar’s without providing any justification for doing so.
C
The argument takes for granted that the number of authorities supporting a particular hypothesis is an indication of how accurate that hypothesis is.
The astronomer never appeals to the number of experts who endorse a theory as evidence of its accuracy. We don’t know how many other authorities share either of the views discussed.
D
The argument appeals to views that contradict rather than support one another.
The astronomer only appeals to one view—Swiderski and Terrada’s—and assumes that it disproves Tagar’s. The flaw is failing to explain why it should be preferred over Tagar’s.
E
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the opinions of all experts are equally justified.
The argument does the opposite of this, assuming that Swiderski and Terrada’s theory disproves Tagar’s. In doing so, it treats one opinion as more justified than another.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply