Q5 - Many scientists believe that bipedal

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sometimes it's tough not to read too much into these questions. I think in this case you are. The author says that bipedalism offered advantages for both those who left the forest and those who remained.

Those who left the forest would be able to see over tall grasses to find food and spot predators.

Those who did not leave the forest floor would be able to reach food that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise.

The debate is about where bipedalism developed and because it would have offered advantages both to those hominids that left the forest for the grasslands and for those who didn't, we cannot be certain where the trait developed.

(A) is a comparison between two places about which we cannot be sure which was more hospitable.
(B) can be inferred since it is mentioned in both groups.
(C) is contradicted by the stimulus because the author does not challenge whether those scientists are correct, but rather simply presents the debate.
(D) has a similar flaw to answer choice (C). The author states that the debate continues.
(E) is a comparison between two activities about which information relating to the comparison is not provided.

Just keep in mind that you're not supposed to be reading so much into these questions as your explanation earlier suggested.


#officialexplanation

[debbie.d.park]

I am having some difficulties with this question.

After pondering between A and B, I chose A (forest environments being more hospitable than grassland), thinking that this could be inferred from the following in the stimulus:

... bipedalism also would have conferred substantial advantages upon early hominids who never left the forest - in gathering food found within standing reach of the forest floor ...

Well, now I can see that assuming "easier to gather food" equals "hospitable environment" does seem like a little too much of a stretch.

But why is B correct?

My reasoning behind dropping B was that early hominids, while developing their bipedal locomotion, left forest and moved to open grasslands, where food is not as easily found as their old habitat (if grasslands also offered plenty of food, why would the author use the word "substantial advantages" for not leaving the forest?). Although standing on two feet does make them locate food easily, when combined with environmental change factor, the net effect of helping gather food seemed somewhat less. Can you point out any logical mistakes I'm making?

I'd appreciate your guidance.

[john]

Here's my thoughts on it:

5. (B)
Question type: Inference

According to the passage, bipedalism allowed early hominids to look over tall grasses and thereby locate food. Also, hominids that remained in the forest could also gather food in standing reach through bipedalism. So, the passage clearly supports the statement that bipedal locomotion would have helped early hominids gather food.

(A) is out of scope because the passage offers no grounds for comparing forests and grasslands with regard to how hospitable they were.
(C) contradicts the passage’s indications that bipedalism was useful in open grasslands.
(D) engages in detail creep, altering the point that bipedalism evolved during the shift from forests to grasslands to the claim that it evolved solely in forests.
(E) is out of scope because the passage does not compare the importance of gathering food to that of avoiding predators.

[irini101]

Hello mshermn, I narrowed down to choice B and D ending up choose B out of gut feeling. I find both are flawed. I followed your explanation of D's flaw:

"(D) has a similar flaw to answer choice (C). The author states that the debate continues."

then I find B would also be flawed, since there are 3 theories of bipedal locomotion's origin in the stimulus:
response to migration from forest to grassland-help gather food;
response to continue living in the forest-help gather food;
response to better odds of finding mate;

Since the debate continues, we could not infer D--as it is only mentioned in the 2nd thoery, not all the three and the debate contines;

then by the same token, neither could we infer B--as gathering food is not mentioned in the 3rd theory, ONLY in the 1st and 2nd theory;

Then I find no correct answer in the choices. Could you please pinpoint the flaw in my understanding/thinking above?

Thanks a lot!

[daniel.g.winter]

Hello mshermn, I narrowed down to choice B and D ending up choose B out of gut feeling. I find both are flawed. I followed your explanation of D's flaw:

"(D) has a similar flaw to answer choice (C). The author states that the debate continues."

then I find B would also be flawed, since there are 3 theories of bipedal locomotion's origin in the stimulus:
response to migration from forest to grassland-help gather food;
response to continue living in the forest-help gather food;
response to better odds of finding mate;

Since the debate continues, we could not infer D--as it is only mentioned in the 2nd thoery, not all the three and the debate contines;

then by the same token, neither could we infer B--as gathering food is not mentioned in the 3rd theory, ONLY in the 1st and 2nd theory;

Then I find no correct answer in the choices. Could you please pinpoint the flaw in my understanding/thinking above?

Thanks a lot!

I think your problem is you are looking for a watertight answer when the question stem asks for "Most supported." This is not a "Must Be True" - it's a similar question type, but you can give it a little more leeway in the answer choices with respect to things that MUST happen. Out of all the choices, B is clearly the most supported, therefore it's correct. Hope that helps.

[goriano]

Hello mshermn, I narrowed down to choice B and D ending up choose B out of gut feeling. I find both are flawed. I followed your explanation of D's flaw:

"(D) has a similar flaw to answer choice (C). The author states that the debate continues."

then I find B would also be flawed, since there are 3 theories of bipedal locomotion's origin in the stimulus:
response to migration from forest to grassland-help gather food;
response to continue living in the forest-help gather food;
response to better odds of finding mate;

Since the debate continues, we could not infer D--as it is only mentioned in the 2nd thoery, not all the three and the debate contines;

then by the same token, neither could we infer B--as gathering food is not mentioned in the 3rd theory, ONLY in the 1st and 2nd theory;

Then I find no correct answer in the choices. Could you please pinpoint the flaw in my understanding/thinking above?

Thanks a lot!

Also, even if bipedal locomotion evolved IN RESPONSE to better odds of finding a mate (theory #3), that doesn't preclude it from helping early hominids gather food, which is what (B) says.

[ptewarie]

Guys, don't overcomplicate. This is probably the easiest inference question I have seen on an LSAT.

Sentence 3 says " bipedialism would have conferred certain advantages upon early hominids(...)- in gathering food."

Answer choice B says this verbatim:
"Bipedal locomotion would have helped early hominids gather food".

How could this not be the right answer? Hope this helps.

[ezraryu]

Hi guys, I have an idea for why the answer choice (D) goes against the argument:

The stimulus is more so leaning toward the possibility that the hominids who exclusively inhabited the forest environment were not bipedal. You can tell by the tone of the main conclusion that comes after "however" that this is the reason for the ongoing debate. To paraphrase the stimulus: the debate on the origins for the bipedal locomotion is still unresolved because, although the trait would have conferred substantial survival advantage (e.g. food gathering), not all hominids (such as the forest dwellers) shared the trait. Perhaps, there were other reasons, such as bettering the odds for finding a mate.

[jeanlouisf]

The answer is B.

The author states no preference for either sides of the debate behind the origin of bipedalism. She also said something similar to "the debate continues".

The most we can say is that Bipedal Locomotion would have helped early hominids gather food, because we can be certain (according to the argument) that despite its origin, gathering food is a common factor agreed upon between scientist in this community.