ngogirl wrote:Olive wrote:ngogirl wrote:There is no explicit information alluding that there is a limit on non neutrinos. We only know that neutrinos are numerous from line 45, and that non neutrinos probably make up for the missing mass. However, there is no information about non neutrinos explicitly or implicitly referred to in the passage.. HTH
What about lines 24-26?
Lines 24-26 gives information about how neutrinos are the most numerous particle---etc. but although they may be the most numerous particle, it does not mean that together different types of non neutrinos that could or could not be particles together would be more than neutrinos.
Example: At the farmers market apples are the highest number of fruits visible in that market, however underground where we cannot see there are strawberries, blueberries, and jackberries that are grown undergrown and not visible to us as they are underground. These fruits together make up more than the apples that are in the market to our knowledge.
I am not saying this is what the argument is implying, because it doesn't imply such a thing. It just implies that we don't have the information of non neutrinos, so in the example we wouldn't have information on non apples. If we can come up with such a hypothetical with the information that is given, then we cannot assume that neutrinos are more than non neutrinos, AND the AR never explicitly states that there are more neutrinos than non neutrinos.. it only says in the lines referred that it is the most numerous TYPE known.
This type of thinking is key on the LSAT - considering the possibility that something might be a different way than what one might initially assume or see explicitly stated. This mentality is important for mastery of all sections.