Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 80 - Section 4 - Question 26

June 12, 2017

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 26

June 12, 2017

A recent archaeological find in what was once the ancient kingdom of Macedonia contains the remains of the largest tomb ever found in the region. It must be the tomb of Alexander the Great since he was the greatest Macedonian in history, and so would have had the largest tomb. After all, he conquered an empire that stretched from Greece to much of Asia, though it collapsed after his death.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that a recently discovered tomb must be the tomb of Alexander the Great. This is because he would have had the largest tomb, and the recently discovered tomb is the largest tomb ever found in the region.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the largest tomb EVER FOUND is the largest tomb that existed. This overlooks the possibility that we haven’t found the largest tomb. The recently discovered tomb might be the largest found so far...but there could be larger tombs that we haven’t found.

A

takes for granted that greatness can be attained only by military conquest

The author believes Alexander’s conquests constitute a reason to think he was great. This doesn’t imply the author believes one cannot become great through other methods besides conquest.

B

takes for granted that the largest tomb found so far must be the largest that was built

The author overlooks the possibility that there are larger tombs in the region that we just haven’t found. If that’s true, we can’t conclude the largest tomb found so far must be Alexander’s. So the author must assume the largest one found so far is the largest that existed.

C

does not show how the recently discovered tomb compares with other tombs from the same period that have been found in other regions

How tombs in other regions compared to this tomb doesn’t affect the argument, because we have no reason to think tombs in other regions are relevant. The author’s assuming Alexander’s tomb was in the region we’re talking about.

D

fails to evaluate the significance of the fact that Alexander’s empire did not survive his death

The argument is concerned with whether a particular tomb was Alexander’s. What happened to Alexander’s empire after he died doesn’t affect the reasoning. We have a premise that says Alexander was the greatest Macedonian; what happened to his empire doesn’t change that fact.

E

takes for granted that archaeologists can determine the size of the tomb from its remains

We know the recently discovered tomb is the largest found in the region. Whether we determined the size from remains or from something else doesn’t matter. We know it’s the largest found, so questioning this fact isn’t where we’ll find a flaw.

15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 80 - Section 4 - Question 25

June 12, 2017

This is not what the question is talking about but it's very cool:

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 25

June 12, 2017

Scientist: A small group of islands near Australia is inhabited by several species of iguana; closely related species also exist in the Americas, but nowhere else. The islands in question formed long after the fragmentation of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that included present-day South America and Australia. Thus, these species’ progenitors must have rafted on floating debris across the Pacific Ocean from the Americas.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The scientist hypothesizes that the iguanas’ ancestors reached the islands near Australia by rafting from the Americas. As support, he points out that the only closely related species that currently exist are located in the Americas. He also notes that the islands first formed in isolation, away from any land masses, which implies that species could only exist there now if their ancestors had somehow arrived from elsewhere.

Notable Assumptions

The scientist assumes that the closely related species in the Americas have the same ancestor as the island iguanas. He further assumes that this common ancestor has only ever lived in the Americas and nowhere else.

A

A number of animal species that inhabit the islands are not found in the Americas.

The argument is only concerned with the origins of the iguana species. The potential origins of any other species are irrelevant.

B

Genetic analysis indicates that the iguana species on the islands are different in several respects from those found in the Americas.

The scientist doesn’t suggest or assume that the island iguanas are the same species as the American ones. His argument is that they merely share the same ancestor, and that this ancestor rafted from America to the islands. They may have evolved differently since that ancestor.

C

Documented cases of iguanas rafting long distances between land masses are uncommon.

That documented cases are uncommon does not mean that this situation was impossible or even unlikely at the time.

D

Fossils of iguana species closely related to those that inhabit the islands have been found in Australia.

This suggests that the island iguanas’ ancestor may have arrived from Australia, rather than from the Americas.

E

The lineages of numerous plant and animal species found in Australia or in South America date back to a period prior to the fragmentation of Gondwana.

The argument is only concerned with the origins of the island’s iguana species. The potential origins of other species in other locations are irrelevant.

Extracurricular

This is not what the question is talking about but it's very cool:

36 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 80 - Section 4 - Question 24

June 12, 2017

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 24

June 12, 2017

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 80 - Section 4 - Question 23

June 12, 2017

17 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 23

June 12, 2017

21 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 80 - Section 4 - Question 22

June 12, 2017

48 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 22

June 12, 2017

Scientists once believed that the oversized head, long hind legs, and tiny forelimbs that characterized Tyrannosaurus rex developed in order to accommodate the great size and weight of this prehistoric predator. However, this belief must now be abandoned. The nearly complete skeleton of an earlier dinosaur has recently been discovered. This specimen had the characteristic T. rex features but was one-fifth the size and one-hundredth the weight.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that the belief T. rex developed certain features to accommodate its great size must be abandoned. This is because an earlier dinosaur skeleton has been discovered with the same features but of a far smaller size and weight.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the skeleton in question is that of an adult dinosaur. The author also assumes that the dinosaur in question didn’t develop a large head, long hind legs, and tiny forelimbs for some other reason than to accommodate its size. The author therefore believes such adaptations can only arise in response to size.

A

Was the ratio of the head size of the recently discovered dinosaur to its body size the same as that for T. rex?

Even if the skeleton in question had a smaller or larger head relative to its body than T. rex, the skeleton still exhibits T. rex features. Such features were thought to be adaptations to great size, but the skeleton is far smaller than T. rex.

B

At what stage in its life did the recently discovered dinosaur die?

If the skeleton is a dinosaur who died in its infancy, then perhaps that dinosaur was simply a young precursor to T. rex who could’ve grown to a great size. This would undermine the author’s argument that certain T. rex features couldn’t have been size adaptations.

C

Was T. rex the largest and heaviest prehistoric predator?

We don’t care if T. rex was the absolute biggest prehistoric predator, which has nothing to do with whether certain features were size adaptations. There could’ve been larger predators with different adaptations.

D

Was the species to which the recently discovered dinosaur belonged related to T. rex?

Even if that species was indeed related to T. rex, the skeleton is a much smaller dinosaur. For all we know, T. rex relatives could be small dinosaurs while nonetheless being relatives.

E

Did the recently discovered dinosaur prey on species as large as those that T. rex preyed on?

Irrelevant. The features in question weren’t, according to traditional theory, adaptations for predation. They were adaptations for size.

51 comments