Top Law Schools

I wanted to go with (E) so badly for this answer, but I just was a little confused by what it was saying, and I didn't understand what words like "diminution", even though I thought the answer as a whole could potentially weaken the argument. I ended up choosing (D) because I thought that it indicated how the climate could have been different and therefore been harmful to the dinosaurs. Could some help me clearly understand what (E) and (D) are saying?

Note: (Looking at (D) again it seems like that wouldn't really impact the truth of the premise at all, because it doesn't really expose the assumption that the dust cooled the planet enough to eliminate the dinosaurs)

Hey I think I can help.


The flaw that is happening here is that he is using the term "public interest" in two different ways. In the beginning of the stimulus he refers to public interest as acting in a way that is best for the overall well being of the public, in the same sense that me telling my little brother not to do heroin is in his best interest.

However, at the end of the stimulus he talks about public interest in the sense that the public are interested in the lives of celebrities, meaning they are curious, they want to know what Brad and Angelina are up to these days, like how the Paparazzi satisfy the public's interest in the lives of celebrities.

Essentially that is all that answer choice E is saying, which is why it is correct. Its saying that he used the phrase public interest in two different ways in his argument. Its a common flaw that occurs on the LSAT so you should become familiar with it.

For answer choice D the author never states whether their responsibility comes from legal or moral grounds.

alexroark wrote:Hey I think I can help.


The flaw that is happening here is that he is using the term "public interest" in two different ways. In the beginning of the stimulus he refers to public interest as acting in a way that is best for the overall well being of the public, in the same sense that me telling my little brother not to do heroin is in his best interest.

However, at the end of the stimulus he talks about public interest in the sense that the public are interested in the lives of celebrities, meaning they are curious, they want to know what Brad and Angelina are up to these days, like how the Paparazzi satisfy the public's interest in the lives of celebrities
Essentially that is all that answer choice E is saying, which is why it is correct. Its saying that he used the phrase public interest in two different ways in his argument. Its a common flaw that occurs on the LSAT so you should become familiar with it.

For answer choice D the author never states whether their responsibility comes from legal or moral grounds.

Thanks, but I actually got that question right lol, even though it took me a while to find the conclusion. I was referring to question #16 on preptest 10.

Oh hey my bad!

So the answer is E.

E is saying that the number of dinosaurs was decreasing before the asteroid hit, and continued to decrease after the asteroid hit which would suggest that some other effect was causing the dinosaurs to become extinct rather than the sudden impact of an asteroid.

Dinosaur species decreased from 35 to 13 below the extraterrestrial dust (remember that is the dust from the asteroid). Because this decrease in species happened below the level of dust we are to infer that the decrease was happening BEFORE the asteroid hit. Similarly we are to assume that dinosaur species continued to decline even after the asteroid hit (from 13 to 5).

Essentially what you are asked to do is attack a CAUSAL conclusion that dinosaurs are extinct because of the asteroid. To weaken a causal conclusion you can either:
1. show that when the cause does not occur, the effect still occurs
2. shot that when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur
3. show that some 3rd effect causes both other effects
4. show that the relationship is actually reversed
5. show that the data is faulty.

so essentially answer choice E is weakening the causal conclusion via method #1 above. It shows that the effect (dinosaurs dying off) was occurring even before the alleged cause (asteroid impact) took place.

Make sense?

alexroark wrote:Oh hey my bad!

So the answer is E.

E is saying that the number of dinosaurs was decreasing before the asteroid hit, and continued to decrease after the asteroid hit which would suggest that some other effect was causing the dinosaurs to become extinct rather than the sudden impact of an asteroid.

Dinosaur species decreased from 35 to 13 below the extraterrestrial dust (remember that is the dust from the asteroid). Because this decrease in species happened below the level of dust we are to infer that the decrease was happening BEFORE the asteroid hit. Similarly we are to assume that dinosaur species continued to decline even after the asteroid hit (from 13 to 5).

Essentially what you are asked to do is attack a CAUSAL conclusion that dinosaurs are extinct because of the asteroid. To weaken a causal conclusion you can either:
1. show that when the cause does not occur, the effect still occurs
2. shot that when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur
3. show that some 3rd effect causes both other effects
4. show that the relationship is actually reversed
5. show that the data is faulty.

so essentially answer choice E is weakening the causal conclusion via method #1 above. It shows that the effect (dinosaurs dying off) was occurring even before the alleged cause (asteroid impact) took place.

Make sense?

Yeah, but could you tell me why (D) is wrong?

D is incorrect because there are no inferences we can make with regard to the relationship between the asteroid impact and the level of dryness of the Gobi Desert. It is completely irrelevant to anything that is mentioned in the stimulus.