PT 69 Sec 4 Q9 Forum

[beenoparte125]

I am seriously stumped as to why the correct answer is the correct answer...

[beenoparte125]

I think I just figured it out.... That's a tough one.

[mornincounselor]

I haven't done any LSAT stuff in many months, but I'm intrigued so i'll give it a try.

A's are investigating p remains approx 10,000 years old.
p1: If c-> discovered A long before anyone else.
p2: if /c -> people had more varied diets than anywhere else at this time.

quasi must be true

(a) eliminated, argument makes no assumption about the likelihood of solving the paradox.
(b) cannot immediately eliminate. leave for later.
(c) not necessarily true. it inverts the relationship. eliminate.
(d) much like (c), this also inverts the relationship in a way that isn't necessarily true, eliminate.
(e) eliminated. the argument makes no mention of the likelihood of one or the other being true.

That leaves us with only (b), so let's see if it makes sense. Do both premises support this? Yes! Because if p2 -> the people ate this plant when others did not -> people used some plants in a unique way. if p1 -> discovered A long before anyone else -> then surely they used this plant in a unique way.

[beenoparte125]

I agree. My folly was in that I thought Just because they had a greater "variety" it doesn't necessarily mean they used any single plant within that variety in a unique way.