question bout pt60 LR section three

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

question bout pt60 LR section three

Postby sangr » Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:08 pm

this is number 11.

so it says a hurricane that hit last year was the highest intensity in the past 200 years.
the reasoning for this is that it wiped out five specifes of coral, including mounds that were more than two centuries old.

wat is his underlying assumption?

can u assume that in the past 200 yrs fives species of coral were never wiped out? or that mounds more than two centuries old were not wiped out? no right?

im asking because those are his main reasons for his conclusion..and the answer doesnt touch up on this (im guessing the answer is one of those "blocking out another possiblity" answers.



Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:32 pm

Re: question bout pt60 LR section three

Postby ust2008 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:17 pm

Its important to draw the distinction of species vs. specific mounds. I don't think the species is important - its the specific mounds that matter.

The argument is that the recent BW wiped out these mounds of coral that were 200 years old. Therefore, no BW of equal intensity could have struck w/in the last 200 years because otherwise these really old mounds of coral wouldn't have survived this long.

If answer choice D is negated, it implies that these mounds of coral were in a fragile state prior to the BW arriving. If this were the case, then BW events w/similar intensity could have struck the bay w/in the last two centuries without necessarily completely wiping out the mounds (because, when it struck previously, the coral was NOT fragile). This weakens the argument significantly & no other answer choices do - so that's your pick.

Hope this helps.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: missfozzie and 21 guests