Q20 - Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably s

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Wild apples are smaller than cultivated apples. Archaeologists who study apples (Appleologists?) have only found the smaller apples from approx. 5,000 years ago. Therefore, apples probably weren't cultivated then.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus mentions ~5,000 years ago is when people started cultivating fruit. Since it brings a timeline up, I'd consider that. Here, since the apples grew larger over time, it could be the case that the apples were being cultivated, just for not a long enough period to have grown much better than wild apples!

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The conclusion of the argument is just about the specific region, so this answer about other regions is out of scope.

(B) Bingo. This gets at the timeline and spectrum of growth over the 5,000 years. It's possible the small, wild-like apples were cultivated, just not for a long enough period to have changed yet.

(C) Tempting since it's about the size of apples! However, the existence of some apples of other sizes wouldn't impact the comparison being made to wild/smaller apples, and cultivated/larger apples. A medium apple could still fit in this world.

(D) Wrong flaw (Self-contradiction). This answer choice is trying to get you to think that stating humans first started cultivating fruits contradicts that they didn't cultivate apples. However, those two aren't contradictory, as you could cultivate some fruit but not other.

(E) Wrong flaw (Circular Reasoning). There is no premise that restates the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Whenever the LSAT mentions a timeline, pay attention to it. Whenever an LSAT talks about extremes (large/small), ask yourself whether it exists on a spectrum (here, it does, as size is continuous).

#officialexplanation

[seychelles1718]

I though the author was PRESUMING there are only two types of sizes in apple: the size of wild apples or the size of the cultivated apples in supermarkets today, becaue the author is concluding that the apples from 5000 years ago are probably not cultivated as they are the same size as the wild apples.

Can someone please explain further why C is wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

From reading the author's statements, you think the author committed herself to the idea that there are only two sizes of apples in the universe?

That's what (C) is accusing the author of having done. Every single apple in the universe is the size of a wild apple or the size of a cultivated supermarket apple?

Are there any categories besides wild and "cultivated supermarket"? There could be cultivated non-supermarket.

Farmers might be growing miniature apples or jumbo apples and just not selling them in supermarkets.

(C) is the type of fake necessary assumption that tries to make us think, "If the author only mentioned Bob and Karen as friends of his, then the author ONLY has Bob and Karen as friends."

If (C) said "takes for granted that all cultivated apples are roughly the same size", that's legit.
If (C) said "takes for granted that something the size of a wild apple could not be a cultivated apple" that's legit.

But the author isn't troubled if there is some 3rd size of apple.

We need to say to the author, "Hey, buddy, even though cultivated apples in supermarkets are big size, it's possible that small size apples from 5,000 years ago were cultivated."

[HelenP723]

We’re allowed to consider the experts, the agricultural scientist and archaelogists he uses, are retarded about their respective fields?

[AmeliaS917]

I'm confused about how you anticipated that "it could be the case that the apples were being cultivated, just for not a long enough period to have grown much better than wild apples". How did you draw the connection that the stimulus is saying that the length of apple cultivation is proportional to how well/large they grow?