Q11 - Australia has considerably fewer species

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

No problem.

The question stem asks us to find the main point (conclusion) of the argument.

The first sentence is the strange phenomenon that Australia has fewer carnivorous mammals than other continents but as many carnivorous reptiles.

The second sentence is an explanation for why that phenomenon is occurring. This is explained by the unusual sparseness of Australia's ecosystems.

The final sentence is the evidence for why the hypothesis outlined in the second sentence is correct.

So the conclusion of this argument is the second sentence. This argument concludes an explanation in the second sentence for the phenomenon outlined in the first sentence and then provides evidence for why this explanation is correct.

Given that we're looking for something that resembles the second sentence we're left with answer choice (C).

(A) is the phenomenon but not the explanation for why the phenomenon occurred.
(B) is part of the evidence for why their explanation is correct.
(D) is part of the evidence for why their explanation is correct.
(E) is also part of the evidence for why their explanation is correct.

[dj_grey]

I know the answer is C.........but not sure why. Can someone help to go through this. Just not getting this one.

[dj_grey]

How did you know the 2nd sentence was the "conclusion". I was thinking the last sentence was the conclusion which was my problem. But how on earth did you get the 2nd sentence as the conclusion............

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question.

This is a really common logical structure on the LSAT and is used in strengthen questions, weaken questions, and identify the conclusion questions most frequently. If the argument states as fact some strange phenomenon, frequently that argument will conclude an explanation for why/how that phenomenon occurred.

Here's an example:

Isn't it strange that 7 out 10 shoppers say they prefer Northwoods maple syrup to any other syrup. Northwoods brand maple syrup must be tops for taste.

The first sentence is the introduction of a phenomenon and the second sentence is a proposed explanation. This explanation could be easily undermined by providing an alternative explanation, such as Northwoods is simply cheaper than everyone else.

Look for this construct... You will find it all over the LSAT.

One other thing. In the last sentence you see a structure that looks like

......; thus, ...... .

I know the word thus is there and indicates a conclusion of some sort. In this case it is a subsidiary conclusion (intermediate conclusion) that is supported by the part before the semi-colon, and goes on to support their explanation in the 2nd sentence.

[stephanieledesma88]

I remember seeing that syrup question somewhere haha I've been studying too much... (just kidding )

For this question I chose A. I thought that the first sentence was the conclusion (obviously) and the second sentence was the description or explanation of the first sentence... Which you said is correct. So, why isnt A right? Isnt the second sentence just add on information explaining the first sentence... meaning its not really the main conclusion?

I have a lot of trouble with these types of questions and its very frustrating because they appear to be the easiest but I still get them wrong almost every time!!!! I never know whether or not it's asking for the specific sentence in the stimulus that represents the main conclusion, like a role question, or if it's asking for the main conclusion that we've put together ourselves. Kinda like a reworded main conclusion... or in this case, two of the sentences put together to make the conclusion.

[ptewarie]

"
Sentence 1:Australia has considerably fewer species of carnivorous
mammals than any other continent does but about as
many carnivorous reptile species as other continents do.

Sentence 2: This is probably a consequence of the unusual
sparseness of Australia’s ecosystems.

Sentence 3:To survive,carnivorous mammals must eat much more than carnivorous reptiles need to; thus carnivorous mammals
are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is
relatively little food."

You need to realize that for a statement to be a conclusion, it must be FULLY supported by each detail mentioned in the premises. Think of the premises' only reason for existence is upholding the conclusion. The conclusion is the "roof" while the premise is the pillar.
That means if you take the roof out, then the pillars are useless.

Let's try this out here. Suppose I take out sentence 2. What do we get:

Australia has considerably fewer species of carnivorous
mammals than any other continent does but about as
many carnivorous reptile species as other continents do.

To survive,carnivorous mammals must eat much more than carnivorous reptiles need to; thus carnivorous mammals
are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is
relatively little food."


The second sentence does not add up here. It is making huge jumps in assumptions and what we see is that what it is describing, does not even exist in sentence 1. IE: what's this whole business with ecosystems?


Notice that if we OMIT the 1st sentence:


The lack fewer carnivorous animals(added to make sense) is a consequence of the unusual sparseness of Australia’s ecosystems.

To survive,carnivorous mammals must eat much more than carnivorous reptiles need to; thus carnivorous mammals
are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is
relatively little food."

This makes more sense.

Use the omit test to test if a sentence is a conclusion or not. If the statement make no sense if the sentence is taken out, it means you have taken out a conclusion

[timsportschuetz]

Another thing extremely important to note on this question is the scope of the answer choices! This is an identify the conclusion question. Thus, we must choose an answer that falls WITHIN the scope and evidence of the original argument! Answer choices (B) and (D) simply talk about a very general principle based on the argument. However, the argument is specifically referring to Australia's ecosystems! Therefore, these two answer choices CANNOT be correct since they go beyond the limited scope of the stimulus!

[lugar.choi]

"
Notice that if we OMIT the 1st sentence:


The lack fewer carnivorous animals(added to make sense) is a consequence of the unusual sparseness of Australia’s ecosystems.

To survive,carnivorous mammals must eat much more than carnivorous reptiles need to; thus carnivorous mammals
are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is
relatively little food."

This makes more sense.

Use the omit test to test if a sentence is a conclusion or not. If the statement make no sense if the sentence is taken out, it means you have taken out a conclusion

This omit test doesn't work here because by adding the first part "The lack [sic] [of] carnivorous animals(added to make sense)" to cover the word "this", you are, by nature, using the 1st sentence, hence NOT omitting it. Then 2nd sentence alone cannot be the conclusion due to the word "this"; the conclusion is the combination of the 1st and the 2nd sentence. Which is the answer (see (C)). You must be very careful not to state that the 2nd sentence alone is the conclusion because 2nd sentence cannot exist without 1st sentence, triggered by the word "this".

[jniu.boston]

The explanations here are great. Just a quick follow up.

Could one interpret "Australia" as the example/evidence to support the claim in the final sentence? The PowerScore LR book specifically said that "the premises and the conclusions can appear in the same sentence" (p. 23; 2015 ed.). Doesn't this meant that the structure "___; thus, ___" could indicate a conclusion?

Thanks.

[arya.bhaskar1987]

While I must admit I chose (A), on reviewing, I realize that the first sentence is purely factual. I believe, a statement could be a conclusion supported by premises and explanations in case it is a logical inference. However, this is just fact or as Matt calls 'a phenomenon' (like reading out of wikipedia). Therefore, I feel it can't be the conclusion of an argument.

LSAT geeks may kindly confirm if my understanding could be taken as a general principle applicable everywhere.

Thanks

[cstars808]

can you clarify whats wrong with "e". I know its not the answer but what about it makes it wrong. I know previously it was listed as evidence, but isn't it also part conclusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, in part it's a funky answer because it's an ARGUMENT, not a conclusion.

Typically, the correct answer simply identifies the Conclusion, which is one claim.

This actually has "Because _____, _____" structure, which gives us an entire argument core.

The other important thing to say about (E) is that it gets us to an intermediate conclusion, but not the main one.

The biggest idea out there is how Australia's carnivorous mammal/reptile ratio compares to every other continent's.

(E) is JUST about what's happening within Australia.

We discuss what's happening within Australia in order to make the larger point about why Australia RESEMBLES other continents in terms of number of reptile species but FALLS SHORT of other continents in terms of number of mammal species.

[cstars808]

thank you for the clarification! got it now!!!

[rodion.raskolnikov1866]

I think the question is problematic. There seems to be two possible answers: (B) or (C), and the correct answer depends upon the way one reads the argument. The passage could be arguing from an example towards a general principle (inductive reasoning), in which case, the answer would be (C), and this makes sense given that inductive reasoning is concerned with cogency (probability) and one of the premises deals in probability (premise: "This is probably a consequence..."). Or, it could be a case of arguing from a general principle to a specific conclusion (deductive reasoning), in which case, the answer would be (B). So, it's easy to eliminate every answer but the two possible conclusions of (B) and (C), but I'm still not convinced that (B) is the obvious answer. This seems to be one of those questions that simply requires the test taker to learn the question and answer preferences of the LSAT.

[Yit HanS103]

This is how I chose C as the conclusion and not the last sentence.
We know the conclusions are always the author's opinion, and the phrase "this is probably" sounds pretty much like an opinion. Please tell me if this is another way to get to the right answer.
Thank you !

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that's exactly right.

They have written a few ID the Conclusion questions with this template.

claim 1: here's a fact of science
claim 2: this is probably what's going on.
rest of paragraph: support for claim 2

The only real structural indicator we have is that opinion-indicator word "this is probably".

If you want to see a similar example, check this one out:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... -t329.html

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Carnivorous mammals need to eat much more than carnivorous reptiles in order to survive. So carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage in ecosystems where there's little food. Therefore the reason Australia has considerably fewer carnivorous mammals is probably due to the unusual sparseness of its ecosystems.

Answer Anticipation:
This one is tough because there's an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion. And the conclusion indicator is on the intermediate conclusion! You can use the therefore test to see which conclusion makes the most sense as support for the other. Or, when it doubt, look for a judgment/opinion, as that's usually the last jump the argument makes and can help point you to the main conclusion. The "probably" in the second sentence helps us figure out that's the main conclusion. And the "this is" references and incorporate the very first sentence as well.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is just the first sentence without the judgment of the second sentence, which is the main conclusion. Also: be wary if the wording is exactly the same.

(B) This is referencing the disadvantage carnivorous mammals have, which is in the intermediate conclusion.

(C) Perfect. It's basically the second sentence with the first sentence incorporated instead of the "this is" reference. For ex: "Ice cream is tasty, this is probably why I like it" translates to "ice cream's tastiness is probably the reason I like it."

(D) Another reference to the disadvantage in the intermediate conclusion.

(E) Another reference to the disadvantage in the intermediate conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When in doubt between an intermediate and main conclusion, go with the judgment/opinion.

#officialexplanation