(A) says “just because a counterargument to your position fails, that doesn’t mean your position is right.”

As a curriculum note, this phrasing points squarely to the lack of support vs. false conclusion common flaw, which you should aspire to recognize by name.

Anyway, the Paleontologist does claim that a particular argument (the Hipsters’ argument) against a theory (birds evolved from maniraptors) is misguided. That bit tracks. But this is the Paleontologist’s conclusion.

For (A) to be right, the Paleontologist would have to make the above point, then go on to conclude “therefore birds must have evolved from maniraptors.”

(B) is a complex claim to parse, but in the end what is does is bring up an additional line of reasoning that the Paleontologist could have used to make their argument even stronger.

(B) says “Hey Paleontologist, what about the possibility that even if maniraptors existed before the first birds did…” And here just stop to work that out. Maniraptors existing before birds would be good for the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors.

So we’re saying: Even if the theory is right(ish), there might not be any proof in the fossil record.

The Paleontologist’s argument says “just because we haven’t found any fossil evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. (B) says “Yeah! And even if there isn’t any, that doesn’t make the theory wrong!”

If you’re not accustomed to the LSAT’s norms, you could conceivably argue that “Hey buddy why didn’t you make this other point? It would have been way better!” is a criticism. And sure, it kind of is. But that’s not the kind of criticism the LSAT is looking for in Flaw questions – we’re looking for direct attacks on the argument itself. If you’re still salty about this, just note that criticism undermining your position causes more vulnerability than constructive criticism about how you could have made your point better.

(C) is wrong because the Hipsters are merely unwilling to accept the theory, which is different than declaring the theory must be wrong. Stick with me for a second.

By the Hipsters’ own logic, the existence of old maniraptor fossils would be enough to allay their concerns about not having found any, which would force them to accept the theory (or, at least, to start offering different reasoning to justify their refusal to accept it).

But accepting the theory is different from the theory being true, and (C) needs the Paleontologist to conclude the theory is true (if we get the evidence).

The Paleontologist correctly thinks that the existence of old maniraptor fossils itself proves that the Hipsters should accept the theory (or find other reasoning).

The Paleontologist does not think the existence of old maniraptor fossils itself proves that the theory is true. It would indeed be flawed reasoning if it happened, but it doesn’t happen.

If the Paleontologist’s conclusion were that birds must have evolved from maniraptors, (D) would be on point.

Even better, if the Paleontologist’s conclusion were that the Hipsters ought to accept the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors, (D) would be on point.

That’s probably the most tempting lens on (D): it suggests an alternative source of evidence against the theory that could justify the Hipsters’ refusal to accept it. This would undercut the Paleontologist’s position that the Hipsters should accept the theory.

But the Paleontologist’s conclusion is not that birds evolved from maniraptors. It’s not even that the Hipsters should accept the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors.

The Paleontologist’s conclusion is that the support provided by the Hipsters does not justify their refusal to accept the theory. It’s about the Hipsters’ reasoning, not their final stance on whether to accept the theory.

If you say “I think the sky is blue because every table I’ve ever seen has been a rectangle,” and I reply “That reasoning is completely misguided,” the fact that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to believe the sky is blue doesn’t make my statement wrong.

The Hipsters point out that we haven’t found any fossil evidence to support the theory the birds evolved from maniraptors, and refuse to accept the theory as a result.

The Paleontologist points out that just because we haven’t found any evidence doesn’t mean no evidence exists.

Here’s where (E) comes in. The Hipsters could respond “Yeah sure, but lots of things could exist. Just because evidence for a theory could exist doesn’t mean I should accept it. I’m gonna wait until you actually find some evidence.”

There’s room for the Hipsters’ reasoning – that the absence of known evidence for a theory justifies reluctance to accept the theory – even though (as the Paleontologist points out) that evidence could possibly exist somewhere.