Q12

 
johnrodriguez05
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: June 04th, 2011
 
 
 

Q12

by johnrodriguez05 Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:33 pm

I can see why A is the answer here, but in attempting this question under timed conditions I was only able to eliminate C and D. Does any one have any good reasons for eliminating B and E?

Thanks.
 
kaseyb002
Thanks Received: 4
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 23
Joined: July 12th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by kaseyb002 Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:00 pm

I'll give it a shot.

So tadpoles nip at other tadpoles to figure out who is their sibling and who is not.

B - never said omnivorous tadpoles can't do this themselves
E- same thing. Who says omnivorous species couldn't use the same method?
 
joseph.carroll.555
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 22
Joined: March 12th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by joseph.carroll.555 Fri May 17, 2013 5:42 pm

I'm actually still confused as to why A is the right answer? I know it doesn't say that visual cues are exclusively responsible for the mechanism of kin recognition, but how are we to infer that they are not.

Is this answer trying to subtly go after the suggestion that inclusive fitness theory may be responsible for the "mechanism" as well? When I saw the word mechanism I was thinking of the actual physical process of how they determine nonsiblings from siblings, and I wasn't necessarily thinking about why they do it. So to me, it seemed perfectly acceptable that visual cues could explain how they recognize kin.

I'm confused... :|
 
leroyjenkins
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 22
Joined: March 18th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by leroyjenkins Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:45 pm

So here is why A is right:

We are told in lines 39-42 that the cannibal tadpoles "have a procedure of discrimination whereby they nip at other tadpoles, eating nonsiblings but releasing siblings unharmed."

If they discriminate by nipping the other tadpoles, then they are not using visual cues alone. They are using taste (or something like taste...can tadpoles even taste things?). Regardless, they are not relying on vision alone when they nip on other tadpoles, so we can infer that the mechanism does not rely on visual cues alone.
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 468
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by tommywallach Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:27 am

Hey Guys,

Yep. Leo nailed it. Just wanted to give my endorsement. : )

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
Awesomesauce
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 2
Joined: October 13th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by Awesomesauce Sat May 10, 2014 1:13 pm

I sort of understand why the answer is right, but I don't see the part where it says they do in fact rely on visual cues. Does it not matter for the answer if they do or don't rely on visual cues at all?
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by ohthatpatrick Thu May 15, 2014 7:31 pm

I see your confusion.

What’s going on here is something that is actually relevant to how we interpret/prove a lot of negatively phrased LSAT statements.

For example, what do I need to prove this statement:
Not all US Presidents have been female.

First of all, do you think that statement is true or false in the real world?



It is definitely true. If we say it’s false, then we think "ALL U.S. Presidents have been female." It’s either all or not all.

So back to the original question, what do I need to prove the statement
"Not all US Presidents have been female"?

I only need one, measly US President who was male (i.e. NOT female).

I don’t need ANY examples of US Presidents who were female to prove that statement. (Clearly, since we know the statement is true, but we also know that there haven’t been any female Presidents)

The formulaic translation of "Not all A are B" is "Some A are ~B"

To prove the statement "Some US Presidents are NOT female" we just need one example of a non-female US president.

Similarly, saying "getting into law school is not solely affected by your LSAT score" can be rephrased as "something that is not-LSAT affects your chances of getting into law school".

In (A), we would rephrase it as "something that is NOT-visual cues can be a mechanism by which they identify their kin".

So we only need one example of something NOT-visual to support/prove that claim.

Hope this helps.
 
ym737
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: June 01st, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by ym737 Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:54 am

May I know why C is wrong?
It says in the passage that "cannibal tadpole is less likely to avoid eating kin when it becomes very hungry, which means, based on my understanding, that it does not always allow tadpole to distinguish its siblings from non-sibilings
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by ohthatpatrick Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:43 pm

Good line reference. I see how you tried to make that stretch.

But 39-41 says that they "nip at other tadpoles, eating nonsiblings but releasing siblings unharmed".

Since that line tells us that they clearly have an ability to distinguish between sibling and nonsibling, the safer to way to make sense of the tadpole's occasional eating of siblings is "Screw it -- I'm hungry", not "Well, THIS time I can't tell whether we're related".

The author reinforces the former interpretation by saying that they're putting their own genetic makeup ahead of their siblings'. (this sounds intentional, not accidental)

The intended meaning of that paragraph is that the tadpoles CAN distinguish between kin and non-kin, and they would normally choose to eat non-kin. But if they're hungry, they'll go ahead and eat kin anyway.
 
renata.gomez
Thanks Received: 1
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 44
Joined: December 27th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by renata.gomez Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:01 pm

Hi!!

I see why A is right, and in a way, I see why is B is wrong (because it doesn't say that omnivorous can't use it) but I was wondering if someone could go a little deeper and give an example/explain why omnivorous tadpoles would use/need this mechanism? If they don't eat other tadpoles then why would they need to distinguish between relatives from non-relatives?

Thank you!
 
LSATN100
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 17
Joined: September 18th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q12

by LSATN100 Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:40 am

The difficulty to recognize A as the correct answer is that the term "visual cues" never appears in the passage. So it is easy to treat A as an out-of-scope answer. I was hesitant to select A because I think "visual cuse" is out of scope.
It is important to realize that this type of answer CAN be correct.
For example, if the passage says "humans walk on their feet," then it is correct to say that "Not all humans walk on their heads."