PT61 S2 Q14

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

PT61 S2 Q14

Postby melmoththewanderer » Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:33 pm

This is the one about geologists, worms and stones.

For this question, how do you guys exclude "E?"

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT61 S2 Q14

Postby mindarmed » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:06 pm

The core here is:

Marks made before earliest known traces of life -> Marks are geological processes rather than worms

So we're looking to weaken the conclusion that the marks are made by geological processes.

E actually does not discuss geological processes whatsoever.

However, D, talks about the only worm-like geological process that could've occurred at the time does not resemble the marks actually made. This destroys the conclusion that the marks are from geological processes.

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT61 S2 Q14

Postby melmoththewanderer » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:15 pm

But isn't it an assumption of the argument that the evidence concerning the advent of worms are predated by rocks is accurate?

So why wouldn't E weaken the argument a little on this front? For example, if I say that the worms are soft-tissue (as E says so) and may not have fossilized that could explain why there has been no evidence predating the rocks... so the evidence is not complete. I guess I'm wondering why doesn't E open the door to this possibility?

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT61 S2 Q14

Postby mindarmed » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:19 pm

melmoththewanderer wrote:But isn't it an assumption of the argument that the evidence concerning the advent of worms are predated by rocks is accurate?

So why wouldn't E weaken the argument a little on this front? For example, if I say that the worms are soft-tissue (as E says so) and may not have fossilized that could explain why there has been no evidence predating the rocks... so the evidence is not complete. I guess I'm wondering why doesn't E open the door to this possibility?


Because you're not evaluating the validity of the evidence on the LSAT. You assume all premises to be true.

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT61 S2 Q14

Postby melmoththewanderer » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:28 pm

Ah, you've resolved my discrepancy. Thank you very much, Armedwithamind!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests