Q13 - Some paleontologists believe that certain

[noah]

It's interesting that you think (E) is a strong answer. I actually consider it a very guarded, lawyer-like answer!

The premises we have are that some paleontologists conclude that hadrosaurs guarded their young in their nests for a long time. Why? Because they found fossils of young hadrosaurs in carefully designed nests.

BUT, we see the same sort of nests used for young crocodiles, who don't guard their young for very long.

So, what can we conclude? It seems like the argument is weakened. Let's see what the answers give us:

(A) is too extreme. We can't conclude that paleontologists have NO evidence - we only know about the evidence they cite, maybe they have some other evidence they haven't mentioned.

(B) is also too extreme. Never? What about when we perfect time travel?

(C) is unsupported - we might find out that hadrosaurs are quite different from crocodiles.

(D) is tempting. Do we know what the fossils tell us? We are definitely not sure what it tells us about how long hadrosaurs guard their young, however the fossils might tell us something about other dinosaurs. Catch that detail creep?

(E) hits the mark. Because the same evidence shows up in a species that does NOT guard their young for long, the nests that the paleontologists is not strong evidence for the theory they have.

Notice how (E) doesn't say the theory is wrong, misguided, or anything extreme. It simply says the evidence isn't strong.

I hope that clears it up.


#officialexplanation

[jennifer]

why E, it seemed like such a strong answer choice. How do we get to E?

[shirando21]

If A is worded as " the carefully designed nests of hadrosaurs are not evidences to support the paleontologists' belief that hadrosaurs guarded their young long after the young hatched", would it be correct?

[noah]

If A is worded as " the carefully designed nests of hadrosaurs are not evidences to support the paleontologists' belief that hadrosaurs guarded their young long after the young hatched", would it be correct?

Let me be a bit of a teacher here and throw it back to you -- do you think that we can infer (know for sure) from the stimulus that the hadrosaur nests provide NO evidence for guarding their young?

Consider how much more guarded the correct answer is...

[shirando21]

I meant that, I was trying to distinguish the wording between A and E...

[ilia.medovikov]

Hello Noah,

Thank you for providing very helpful explanation to this question. This forum so far has helped me a lot to understand the logical reasoning section of the LSAT and I decided to add my thoughts about this question in case other people find them helpful:

To begin with, it is important to recognize that, since this is the main point question, we are looking for an answer choice that is most directly, almost 100%, proven by the facts of the the stimulus:

(A) This answer choice is not fully supported by the facts. The author of the stimulus does not state the hardosaur fossils are the only piece of evidence paleontologists have for their hypothesis. Moreover, by invoking the modern crocodiles counter-example, the author seems to suggest that hardosaur fossils is not the most reliable form of evidence. "No evidence" seems to be the phrase that carries a slightly different connotation - making an assertion and failing to provide any support/proof for it.

(B) The author does not make any hypothesis/predictions about what will or will not occur in the future. As such, this answer choice cannot be proven based on the facts of the stimulus.

(C) This answer choice would have been true had the author stated that whatever characteristic/behavior that modern crocodiles possess must also have been possessed by hardosaurs. However, the author does not state that hardosaurs mirror crocodiles in every respect. As such, we cannot conclude that because crocodiles guard their eggs for a very brief period of time, so did hardosaurs. The crocodiles example suggests that it is possible that hardosaurs were not guarding their nests for a long time after their young have hatched. But it quiet possible that hardosaurs could have guarded their eggs for a medium period of time.

(D) The scope of author's argument is restricted to examining the value of hardosaurs fossils as evidence for particular hypothesis - that certain species of dinosaurs guarded their young for the long time after they have hatched. The facts of the stimulus do not suggest that the author is inclined to make a generalization that hardosaur fossils cannot tell us anything about dinosaurs.

(E) is the answer choice that is most supported by analyzing facts and structure of the argument. Paleontologists use a set of facts - discovery of fossilized hardosaur babies and adolescents as evidence for a hypothesis that certain species of dinosaurs guarded their young in protective nests for a long time after the young have hatched. The author invokes a counter-example (crocodiles) that shows that the same fact support the opposite hypothesis (crocodiles guarding their young for a brief period of time). From this counter-example, we can infer that hardosaur fossils is not a strong evidence for paleontologists' claim.

[kjsmit02]

I still an having a hard time wrapping my head around why D is wrong. I can now see that (E) is a very soft answer, but I still seem to be using incorrect reasoning and strongly prefer (D). (D) Is a soft answer choice too, as it states that it is unclear as to weather what we learn about the hadros from their fossilized remains tells us anything about other dinos. With this language, it could tell us a lot or could tell us nothing, right? I can only think that the root of my problem could be my understanding of the premises, as I feel they are straightforward in showing some support (not alot) for the scientists beliefs. When they mention the "construction of nests for hatchlings and adolescents....", isn't the presence of adolescent fossils in the nests support that the hadros guarded their young long after they hatched? Thus when looking at the prompt as a whole, I see a premise supporting the scientists and a premise (crocs) disproving them. As I see no info that one is superior to another, I reasoned that their belief was in doubt, which lead me to (D). As for (E), I probably overthunk it, as I reasoned that while the opposing evidence raised doubt, why would the evidence they found not be enough for their own beliefs? Can we possibly put a standard of proof one needs for a belief (especially as their belief wasn't completely unfounded)? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!

[chrislmurray2121]

Given that the issue with choice D) seems unresolved for some, I thought I may as well add to the discussion in case others who come across this thread are looking for clarification on why E) is a preferable option.

The point raised by noah concerning D) above is one reason as to why it is incorrect and I will expand on that somewhat here. We must consider the point the author is trying to make here. Not only will we be able to infer the correct answer from the text (which is what makes A, B and C incorrect) but it must also logically be in line with the opinion of the author.

The palaeontologists use the evidence of fossilised hadrosaur babies and adolescents being discovered in carefully designed nests to support their argument - namely that certain species of dinosaur (which we can equate to the 'other dinosaurs' in D)) guarded their young in protective nests long after hatching. They have a hypothesis, and use this evidence to support it. Then comes the second part of the stimulus which signifies the author now making his point, which is a rebuttal to the palaeontologists. He uses the 'crocodile' example to support his argument, which is what we must find in the answer choices. Providing evidence that seems to be aimed at combatting the argument of the palaeontologists (notice the word 'but' showing that his point is something of a counter to the initial argument) by showing that a particular species today construct similar nests to those the palaeontologists use to back up their point, but that these nests do not lead to the same conclusion reached by them. Note that this conflicting piece of evidence does not disprove the hypothesis of the palaeontologists, but it does cast doubt on it. It's also important to recognise that it does this by attacking the validity of the supporting evidence backing up the argument. So, the author is likely to conclude with something along the lines of 'Hence, the evidence used by the palaeontologists does not provide sufficient support for their hypothesis', that's the kind of Prephrase we can create by looking at the way the author begins responding to the counter-premise here.

Notice that choice E) is a pretty good representation of our prephrase, and that is why it is correct. Choice D) on the other hand, is the most tempting incorrect answer because it uses similarly soft language and isn't contradicted by the stimulus. However, it is wrong because it doesn't fit with the structure and direction of the argument the author is making in the last sentence of the stimulus as well as E) does as it doesn't focus on the weakening of the palaeontologists evidence.

Hope this helps anyone who is struggling with this question!

- Chris