Q8 - One good clue as to which

[noah]

8. (A)
Question type: Weaken the conclusion
The conclusion of this argument is that pollen analysis can help identify where an ancient relic was (and was moved). The support for this is that pollen clings to surfaces and that it can be traced to a geographical area. However, as (A) suggests, if the pollen were to move away from the "source" location, it would no longer indicate where the relic had been. The fact that (A) states the pollen "often" moves from place to place in this way adds further weight to this answer choice’s power to cast doubt on the argument.

(B) is out of scope. The argument does not suggest that pollen analysis is the best or least complicated method for determining the history of a relic’s movement.
(C) is very tempting. If the pollen from a certain plant can be traced to two locations, how would one know which location is the relevant one? Indeed, this would complicate the analysis of the relic’s movements. However, the technique relies on using pollens that are unique to a certain area - so those pollens that are in multiple places would not be used.
(D) is also tempting. If we actually don’t know much about pollen distribution, is pollen analysis a good indicator of location? However, the argument limits itself to discussing the identification of pollen from plants that "are known" to be from a specific location.
(E) is out of scope. The argument does not suggest that pollen analysis is the best or least quickest method for determining the history of a relic’s movement.

[mrudula_2005]

I had a hard time coming up with a reason to reject C but is it also that the stimulus actually protects against the possibility that we will be dealing with those types of pollen that are common to several regions? The stimulus says in its last sentence: "A relic is linked to a geographical area by the identification of pollen from plants that are known to have been unique to that area."


presumably then, we are only dealing with those plants and their pollens that are known to have been UNIQUE to a specific area rather than the many types of pollen that were COMMON to several areas (as C deals with), right?

is this reasoning correct or am i misreading something?

thanks!

[noah]

You're right on. Nice read.

[T.J.]

Hi Noah,
Thanks for the explanation which really crystalizes the question for me. At this point, it has come to me that the LSAT test-makers employ the same kind of tactics to fabricate wrong choices for both easy and hard questions. The difference is that in hard questions the language becomes more obscure and elusive. Do you agree?

[noah]

Hi Noah,
Thanks for the explanation which really crystalizes the question for me. At this point, it has come to me that the LSAT test-makers employ the same kind of tactics to fabricate wrong choices for both easy and hard questions. The difference is that in hard questions the language becomes more obscure and elusive. Do you agree?

Great comment!

I would say that I find out of scope answers more often to be easier to spot than something like a small detail shift, so I think that if I were tasked with writing an easier/tougher question, I'd probably rely more or less on those difficulties. This quickly becomes a splitting hairs game, as a large detail shift becomes out of scope.

But, back to you--this kind of thinking (seeing the unified matrix underneath this test) is exactly what you want to be doing.

[logicfiend]

I'm not sure if I'm making this question too complicated. I had originally chosen A, but changed to C at the last minute, which I now understand now is wrong.

The argument says one way to identify where a relic has been is by analyzing the pollens that cling to it. When you identify the pollen, you can trace it back to its unique location (thereby making C an out of scope answer choice).

I originally understood A as saying that because the pollen can move around by the wind or other movement, the "wrong" pollen may cling to the relic. For example, because of the wind, pollen from field XYZ is on the relic, even though the relic was never in field XYZ. This would incorrectly identify where the relic has been.

But this isn't what Noah seems to be saying. I think he's saying that pollen from the original location moves around itself, and may not end up or stay on the relic. This would also incorrectly identify where the relic has been, but not by providing incorrect information as my explanation, but by an omission: pollen that should have been there has been blown away.

Is my explanation/my understanding of Noah's explanation completely off the mark? It seems like either explanation would cast doubt on the reliability of this method of identification.

[erikwoodward10]

I'm not sure if I'm making this question too complicated. I had originally chosen A, but changed to C at the last minute, which I now understand now is wrong.

The argument says one way to identify where a relic has been is by analyzing the pollens that cling to it. When you identify the pollen, you can trace it back to its unique location (thereby making C an out of scope answer choice).

I originally understood A as saying that because the pollen can move around by the wind or other movement, the "wrong" pollen may cling to the relic. For example, because of the wind, pollen from field XYZ is on the relic, even though the relic was never in field XYZ. This would incorrectly identify where the relic has been.

But this isn't what Noah seems to be saying. I think he's saying that pollen from the original location moves around itself, and may not end up or stay on the relic. This would also incorrectly identify where the relic has been, but not by providing incorrect information as my explanation, but by an omission: pollen that should have been there has been blown away.

Is my explanation/my understanding of Noah's explanation completely off the mark? It seems like either explanation would cast doubt on the reliability of this method of identification.

I understood Noah's point to parallel your interpretation, and not to be the second that you outlined. I agree with you, by the way.

I didn't catch the subtlety in the stimulus to prevent the possibility of C (the stimulus says unique, as mentioned above), but eliminated it for another reason. Even if we assume C to be permissible, it doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the reliability of the technique--we've simple identified two (or more) possible locations based on the evidence of the technique. It's still reliable, it just gives us more possibilities. Answer choice A however absolutely identifies a flaw.