Q10 - Asian elephants running

[layamaheshwari]

Why is the correct answer B: To run, an animal must have all of its feet off the ground at once? It seemed like the strong wording (ALL of its feet off the ground AT ONCE) ruled this answer out. The stimuli doesn't preclude the possibility of an animal qualifying as running if it has even three feet off the ground -- it only talks about two feet on the ground or more.

It seemed like "being able to accelerate" seemed like a necessary condition to run, given the stimuli's phrasing, and so I selected its contrapositive, (A): If an animal cannot accelerate, then it cannot run.

What tripped me over: the generalisation from Asian elephant to "an animal"?

[maryadkins]

Your reasoning is correct that under the terms of the argument, it might be possible to run with three feet off the ground. In this sense, (B) does not have to be true. But be careful! This is a sufficient assumption question! It's not a necessary assumption question; you are not looking for what is necessary. This goes to the importance of reading the question stem carefully before you even tackle the argument.

(B) closes the gap, which is what you want on a sufficient assumption question. Yes, it gives you more than you need. That's okay!

(A) doesn't matter because the elephant CAN accelerate. We don't care about animals that can't.

(C) certainly doesn't need to be true; the argument isn't about how quickly it walks.

(D) unusual?

(E) okay...but how would this prove that the elephant doesn't run?

[cynthiaemesibe]

I also had trouble with this question. I ended up choosing C because it is the only one out of all the answer choices that actually mentioned the Asian elephant. The others made a generalization about all animals.

Moving forward how am I supposed to know if when it is okay to make such a generalization when it comes to answering LR questions?

[brettboresow]

I also had trouble with this question. I ended up choosing C because it is the only one out of all the answer choices that actually mentioned the Asian elephant. The others made a generalization about all animals.

Moving forward how am I supposed to know if when it is okay to make such a generalization when it comes to answering LR questions?

Cynthia - This is how I worked the problem. First we need to identify the conclusion.

The conclusion is: Asian elephant does not actually run.

The premises (evidence) for this is:
Asian elephant walks with at least 2 & sometimes 3 feet on ground
It can accelerate
It accelerates by taking quicker, longer steps

So, from the premises we know it walks and we know it accelerates. However, we do not know it runs. Since this is new information in the conclusion this is what we are trying to connect the information to. We can quickly eliminate any answers that do not have to do with running so we can get rid of D & E since they both solely deal with walking.

For C: If we know that they can walk as quickly as other animals run, does that help us prove that Asian Elephants do not actually run?
Nope! So we can eliminate C.

If we look at A it says If an animal cannot accelerate it cannot run. This would help us if we knew that Asian Elephants did not accelerate. But Asian Elephants do accelerate so this doesn't help us. It's like saying if ~A > ~ B.
But we know that A happens. That would be an illegal negation/reversal.

Therefore the only answer choice left is B.

[seychelles1718]

When I did this Q first time, I focused on the 2nd premise (can accelerate but does so by taking quicker and longer steps) rather than the 1st premise.
So my pre-phrase was 'accelerate by taking quicker and longer steps --> not run.'

Why is it wrong to focus on the 2nd premise? What makes the 1st premise more important than the 2nd premise?
I focused on the 2nd premise because it sounds more "important" because there is a pivot phrase "Even though."

[ohthatpatrick]

Nothing was wrong with the second premise. Could've been that one. On a lot of Sufficient Assumption questions, you can't quite predict how the correct answer will work.

You just have to ask yourself with each answer choice
"If I add this new fact or rule to the facts/rules I was given in the premises, can I derive the conclusion?"

[Jayh507]

I got AC C but didn't love the answer. The argument gives us the criteria for the elephant walking (at least 2 sometimes 3 feet on the ground.) But we're never told to run, you have to be able to walk. What if the elephant runs using a different body mechanism that doesn't require 2/3 feet on the ground? Are we suppose to see walking as a precursor to running?

[ohthatpatrick]

That type of idea is so far outside the realm of common sense that LSAT doesn't take it seriously. You know what an elephant is and what running is. Running involves legs, not other body mechanisms. If it was moving by flapping its ears, it would be flying, not running.

If an elephant had all its feet off the ground while falling, it would be falling, not running.

If it had all its feet off the ground while moving parallel to the ground, using its legs, it would be running.

Hope this helps.

[JorgeL203]

Is it safe to assume that the Asian elephant has 4 feet? Or, can we only assume that it has at least 3 (as mentioned in the stimulus)?

[Misti Duvall]

Is it safe to assume that the Asian elephant has 4 feet? Or, can we only assume that it has at least 3 (as mentioned in the stimulus)?

Sure, but I don't think it matters for this question. What we know is that it always has at least two feet on the ground. So if an animal must have all feet off the ground at some point in order to run, the Asian elephant doesn't run.

Hope this helps.

[LawrenceR550]

Interesting how I got this question wrong. Completely understood the stimulus. My anticipation was “Ok, so either running requires 1 foot be off the ground, or some different type of acceleration from the one described.” Initially, didn’t like (A), since it didn’t conform to either of my answer choices. Though it mentions acceleration, it doesn’t really address the point I mentioned in my anticipation.

Then when I saw (B) confused necessary for sufficient. I was really looking for that 1 foot, and suddenly thought to myself “I’m not asking for there to be no feet be off the off. That’s excessive. The answer I want should say 1 foot.”

Finally, when none of the other AC’s addressed the flaw I mentioned earlier, I bailed ship and went with (A). I figured, take the contrapositive of if accelerate then run, and you get if can’t run then can’t accelerate. Of course that doesn’t work, because elephants can, but then I justified my lame choice by thinking “yeah, maybe the elephants can accelerate, but it’s because this weird thing they have, otherwise they would be able to run.” I wasn’t confident coming out of it.