Dec 11 PT 65 - S. 4 Q23

[nyjets2090]

Hi all,

When I took this test yesterday B seemed like a really good answer, except that it said undomesticated instead of domesticated. I ended up picking A, and on blind review went to D, not really being happy with either. A is definitely garbage because it uses "may be more" and D is wrong because it talks about the relationship of dogs to each other as opposed to wolves.

Can someone explain why the fact that TCR refers to undomesticated wolves doesn't throw out the choice? I see how this choice works in every other way.

[boblawlob]

Premise: Some dogs closer genetically to wolves than others
Concl: Some dogs come from wolves that were domestically more recently

A. The statement is a reversal of our argument. Eliminate
B. This statement matches our stim. Pick
C. The statement compares genetic relation to other dogs. Eliminate
D. The statement here also compares genetic relations between other dogs. Eliminate
E. There's no mention of ther being a difference between diff wolf ancestors. Eliminate

So why doesn't the word "undomesticated wolf" throw out the choice? Well for starters, the LSAT is full of tricks that way and so you can't throw out an answer choice simply because it is the opposite word of a word in the stim. You actually have to look at the statement itself and see if it matches the argument, which in this case B does. Also, isn't having a more recently domesticated wolf ancestor the same as saying that one has a more recently undomesticated wolf ancestor?

Ex: Dogs all come from wolves that were undomesticated until 1000 B.C. (the year they were domesticated). But we discover some dogs came from wolves that were undomesticated until 2 A.D. (the year they were domesticated). So these 2nd undomesticated wolf ancestors were domesticated more recently and were more recently undomesticated relative to the 1st wolf ancestors.