PrepTest 10 - February 1994 LSAT Section 4 Q17

nonameee
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:47 am

PrepTest 10 - February 1994 LSAT Section 4 Q17

Postby nonameee » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:44 am

Can someone please explain why option (C) is wrong?

Premise: Scientists now accept a flood theory even though they don't know any process that can melt so much ice so quickly. OK.

But what if there were more than one glacier in the area that contributed to the creation of channels (as is indicated by option (C))? More glaciers means more water. More water means that in the same amount of time the melted water would do the same work as the water from one glacier over a longer period of time. Isn't that obvious? And, therefore, the flood theory holds, although they still don't know would could melt the water so quickly.

Can someone please explain why option (E) is the correct one?

Premise: The channels do show physical evidence of having been formed quickly...

Now, I don't see how damming the source of water and creating a huge lake in the process can quickly form the channels.

Thank you.

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: PrepTest 10 - February 1994 LSAT Section 4 Q17

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

nonameee wrote:Can someone please explain why option (C) is wrong?

Premise: Scientists now accept a flood theory even though they don't know any process that can melt so much ice so quickly. OK.

But what if there were more than one glacier in the area that contributed to the creation of channels (as is indicated by option (C))? More glaciers means more water. More water means that in the same amount of time the melted water would do the same work as the water from one glacier over a longer period of time. Isn't that obvious? And, therefore, the flood theory holds, although they still don't know would could melt the water so quickly.


Ah, this is a good one, although the questions from back then were a bit wonky. The idea with (C) is that even if there's lots of glaciers, the scientists still "don't know what could melt so much ice so quickly". That is, regardless of how much ice is available.

nonameee wrote:Can someone please explain why option (E) is the correct one?

Premise: The channels do show physical evidence of having been formed quickly...

Now, I don't see how damming the source of water and creating a huge lake in the process can quickly form the channels.


(E) also says that the glacier then retreated. In other words, if it was damming a bunch of water, then when it retreats it would be releasing all that water which would explain the fast flooding.

Hope this helps!

nonameee
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:47 am

Re: PrepTest 10 - February 1994 LSAT Section 4 Q17

Postby nonameee » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:05 am

yoni45, OK, understand (E) now. But could you please explain what's wrong with this reasoning:

Before they thought that there was just one source of water (i.e., one glacier). Now they've discovered that there were more than one source (i.e., multiple glaciers).

They also didn't know how so much water could be melted so quickly. Or, in other words, they didn't know how so much water could be produced so quickly. They still don't know it.

If they have discovered that there were more than just one glacier, then it obviously means that those glaciers could produce proportionally more water than one glacier. So although they still don't know what process can melt so much water so quickly, now they actually don't have to know it since they have discovered an alternative way of how these channels could have been formed.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ladymew, lmnope and 11 guests