I do not understand this CR- PT 65 Sec 4 #23 Forum

[Louis1127]

If you like complex principle questions, I've got some fun for you

PT 65, Sec 4, #23, wolves and domestication

This is an identify the principle of the argument question, and some think of it as a necessary assumption question.

The principle is:

Dogs that are more closely related to wolves ----> Dogs are descendants of wolves that were domesticated much more recently than other wolves.

A, C, D, and E are all totally wrong, and I have written out why they are wrong and checked these against two different sets of explanations. I have no issues there at all.

But I do not understand why (B) is right and sadly have been looking at this for 30 minutes.

Here's what I don't get about (B): It gets the sufficient right (yay!), but how does it get the necessary right? The necessary we want is: "Dogs are descendants of wolves that were domesticated much more recently than other wolves". and (B)'s necessary is: "Dogs are descendants of more recent undomesticated wolves".

No- those dogs are descendants of more recent DOMESTICATED wolves- not that these dogs are descendants of more recent UNDOMESTICATED wolves.

Where am I going wrong?

[hetookmetoamovie]

If you like complex principle questions, I've got some fun for you

PT 65, Sec 4, #23, wolves and domestication

This is an identify the principle of the argument question, and some think of it as a necessary assumption question.

The principle is:

Dogs that are more closely related to wolves ----> Dogs are descendants of wolves that were domesticated much more recently than other wolves.

A, C, D, and E are all totally wrong, and I have written out why they are wrong and checked these against two different sets of explanations. I have no issues there at all.

But I do not understand why (B) is right and sadly have been looking at this for 30 minutes.

Here's what I don't get about (B): It gets the sufficient right (yay!), but how does it get the necessary right? The necessary we want is: "Dogs are descendants of wolves that were domesticated much more recently than other wolves". and (B)'s necessary is: "Dogs are descendants of more recent undomesticated wolves".

No- those dogs are descendants of more recent DOMESTICATED wolves- not that these dogs are descendants of more recent UNDOMESTICATED wolves.

Where am I going wrong?

According to the stimulus, it's believed that all dogs are descended from wolves. Different wolves became domesticated at different points in history and then were bred into dogs. So, they're hypothesizing that present day dogs with more genetic similarity to wolves (than with other dogs) had ancestors who stayed wild wolves longer.

I think you're just getting tripped up in the wording! If there are wolves that were domesticated much more recently than other wolves, that means they were undomesticated much more recently. Like, if I graduated in 2007 and you graduated in 2011, that means you graduated more recently than I did. It also means you were "ungraduated" more recently than I've been -- 2010 for you vs. 2006 for me.

[Louis1127]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! You're right, Movie!!!!!!

Dogs that are descendants of wolves that are more recently domesticated (or stayed wolves longer) ARE dogs that that have ancestors that are wolves that were more recently undomesticated!

So wolves that are domesticated more recently are more recently undomesticated.

That is super tough wording in my opinion.

Do I have the correct relationship above, now?

[hetookmetoamovie]

Yes! You've got it!

Prepping for the LSAT is made up of sooo many moments like this! Like, I think I have a pretty good handle on the concepts, but I stumble over the jumbled wording all the time.

[Louis1127]

HAHAHAHA!!!! Yes, I think my strategy and process was ideal, I just didn't see that wording relationship.

A light bulb moment, indeed.

Thanks so much, Movie! You really helped me see what I was doing wrong in simple terms, and explained it so I understood it almost instantly. You should consider being a tutor!