PT61 S2 Q14 Forum

[melmoththewanderer]

This is the one about geologists, worms and stones.

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

[mindarmed]

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]

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?

[mindarmed]

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]

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