Top Law Schools

This is the one about geologists, worms and stones.

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

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.

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?

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.

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