Pt 23 section 2 #6 Forum

[ltowns1]

For some reason I get turned around on this question, I'm usually golden on assumption questions too. But I finally was able to eliminate the other answers and got (D). My question is could (c) have been right if it said something like some humans did not carry their tools into the forest?

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

Even if (C) had said that it would still be wrong. Lol.

However had it said something like, "CHIMPANZEES never carried their tools into the SAVANNA," then this would the credited response. By negating the aforementioned, "CHIMPANZEES carried their tools into the SAVANNA," the conclusion, "the tools must have been used by humans rather than by chimpanzees," could not be made.

[ltowns1]

Even if (C) had said that it would still be wrong. Lol.

However had it said something like, "CHIMPANZEES never carried their tools into the SAVANNA," then this would the credited response. By negating the aforementioned, "CHIMPANZEES carried their tools into the SAVANNA," the conclusion, "the tools must have been used by humans rather than by chimpanzees," could not be made.

Yeah I saw how negating the information kills the argument, But this is what I dont get, the argument is also assuming that the tools did not go into the forest, so don't you just need something to say that the tools did go into the forest?

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

LSAT arguments make many assumptions, and in assumption questions you will see that the argument in the stimulus makes more than one assumption.

In this particular LSAT question, the stimulus also assumes that dinosaurs traveling to the savanna did not, along their way, eat said chimpanzees who were at the time holding tools, and unbeknownst to the dinosaurs, the tools were swallowed whole too!

But your only purpose to getting the CR is to find one answer choice that calls out ONE assumption.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.