pt 1, s3, q 21 help please Forum

[flash21]

First of all - read the manhattan explination. I still don't get it.

I tried breaking this argument down but I really don't get it -- so more weight = more energy expended?

but what does the line about surface area mean thats proportianate to energy output? this is where I get lost. I am missing some sort of link here.

If someone can break it down really slowly for me that would be great. thanks.

[Nebby]

What.

[ScottRiqui]

This is one of the few LSAT questions that I think relies too heavily on outside knowledge, or at least requires some mathematical intuition.

The fact that you need to know (but isn't stated in the question) is that as you go from smaller object to larger objects, the mass of the object increases at a faster rate than the surface area of the object. This is because the mass is proportional to the radius cubed, while surface area is only proportional to the square of the radius.

And that's basically what answer 'C' is saying - that the ratio of surface area to mass is lower for larger animals than it is for smaller animals. So larger animals have much more mass to move uphill compared to smaller animals, but their surface area hasn't increased *enough* to compensate for the increased mass. Thus, they slow down more when traveling uphill compared to smaller animals.

To put it simply, more mass equals greater required energy output. But since surface area (and therefore available energy output) doesn't increase as much as mass does when you go from a small animal to a large animal, the larger animals can't run uphill as quickly.

[CardozoLaw09]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=221469

[flash21]

oops Cardozo law , I think I posted that months and months ago ( i had a lot of time off lsat due to undergraduate ) - i'll definately read your post again. thanks