Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby sdwarrior403 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:00 pm

I need help with this one.

Foster cites a correlation between human migration and large mammal extinctions and concludes that the human migration caused the extinction.

Fisch concludes that the climate caused the extinction.

To strengthen Fisch's argument, I thought it would be a great idea to rule out alternative causes that could explain the extinction, especially the one Foster just posited.

Answer choice B seems to do that. It shows Foster's cause not generating Foster's effect. It shows the large mammals surviving even with the human migration. This makes Foster's causal explanation less likely, which would necessarily strengthen Fisch's causal explanation.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby sdwarrior403 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:20 pm

Bump

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:01 am

2 things I see wrong with B (doing the question myself I also had difficulty deciding but choose E in the end):

1. If the surviving mammals in NA are the ones that migrated from Asia then the ones that were native to NA could still have gone extinct due to human migration. If could be that the Asian mammals were better able to adapt to human migration than native NA mammals.

2. E definitely strengthens Fisch's argument. Even if B weakened Foster's, it may not strengthen Fisch's argument. However, I'd also like some input as to how worthy this reasoning is in finding the correct answer. I've never seen a question that had an answer that weakened one argument and an answer that strengthened another in a strengthen question and I wonder if this can exist. However, I do not believe this to be the case here.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby sdwarrior403 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:11 am

Does B weaken Foster's causal conclusion?

Wouldnt weakening any other cause of the extinctions necessarily strengthen Fisch's causal conclusion?

I completely agree with E, but I need help with my points above.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby sdwarrior403 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:59 pm

Bump.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Preptest 39 Section 4 #18 Strengthen

Postby BlaqBella » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:21 pm

What made me drop "B" was the phrase "most mammals". The argument specifically addressed the cause of extinction of "many species of extremely large NA mammals". Just because most survived, does not mean that many did not become extinct, including that of species of extremely large NA mammals. IMHO, B does nothing to help or hurt Fisch's argument.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, bearedman8, jagerbom79 and 20 guests