Q20 - Biologist: Lions and tigers

[maryadkins]

Good discussion and definitely a hard one.

The core as you properly identified is:

lion

-Lions and tigers have really similar skeletons
-But they behave differently - for example, Lions hunt in packs while tigers hunt individually
-therefore, it is unreasonable to infer solely on the basis of skeleton structure whether an extinct predatory animal hunted in packs.

The assumption is that what is true for lions and tigers is also true for extinct predatory animals.

(A) is incorrect because the argument is not based on similarities between lions and tigers and extinct animals, but on whether the extinct animals relate to each OTHER the way lions and tigers do.

(B) wouldn't allow our conclusion to be properly drawn. Okay, so there were two animals that they had the same skeleton. Did they hunt the same way? We still don't know.

(C) is a wordy way of restating our exact argument. "If skeletal anatomy alone...behavior" = our lions and tigers example (i.e. the premise), and "then it is never... packs" = our conclusion.

(D) is the opposite of what we want! It reverses the logic.

(E) is the opposite of what we want! It negates the premise without reversing.


#officialexplanation

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!
I correctly chose (C) for this problem, but wanted to hear opinions for eliminating (B). Since the evidence used to support the conclusion about predatory animals (such as certain dinosaurs) is about lions and tigers having indistinguishable skeletons but different behaviors -- I thought we had to link that to certain predatory animals.

Any thoughts??

[gilad.bendheim]

I found this one tough. The stimulas is set up more or less as follows:
-Lions and tigers have really similar skeletons
-But they behave differently - for example, Lions hunt in packs while tigers hunt individually
-therefore, it is unreasonable to infer solely on the basis of skeleton structure whether an extinct predatory animal hunted in packs.

Off the top of my head, it isnt immediately obvious what the gap is in this argument, and but (based on the differences between the conclusion and the premises) I assume it will have something to do with hunting in packs specifically (as opposed to individually) as well as to get us somehow from lions and tigers specifically to a generalization about predatory animals.

Using POE you can get it down to (B) and (C) pretty easily. (C) seems correct because it makes the conclusion necessary. (C) tells us that if the skeletal anatomy alone is not enough to let us know about one species hunting habits, then it is NEVER alone enough to tell us about any species hunting in packs. This fills the two gaps that we sensed had to exist - (1) the move from lions/tigers to all species and (2) the specificity of packs.

Choice (B) is a tricky one. The argument in the stimulas relied on having two animals with similar skeletons that had different hunting habits, and based on this fact set, claimed that we should not be comfortable making claims about any other species' hunting habits if our only evidence is skeletal anatomy. The core of the argument is that skeletal anatomy doesn't appear to be a sufficient predictor of hunting habits. After all, both lions and tigers share the same skeletal structure, but they hunt differently. Thus, if we found a fossil that looked a lot like a lion, we cant really assume that they hunted like a lion, because the lion's skeletal structure does not appear to have been sufficient to make the lion hunt like a lion -- something else is part of the process.

OK. So back to choice (B), the answer tries to trip us up into assuming that the extinct dinosaur THEMSELVES needed to have a fellow species that had very similar anatomy. This isnt the case, and would not actually help our argument. Lets say that a certain extinct species was the only one of its kind and no others looked remotely like it, but its structure was similar to that of a modern-day lion/tiger. Does this mean that the argument falls apart? No, in fact it is equally valid that we should not assume anything about its hunting habits based solely on this anatomical similarity.

The stimulas' argument was NOT limited to species that have very similar skeletons to another species. Rather, it was based on one case of similar skeletons and different habits, from which we learned a general rule that it is likely never legitimate to predict hunting style based on skeleton.

Hope this made sense!

[coco.wu1993]

(C) is a wordy way of restating our exact argument. "If skeletal anatomy alone...behavior" = our lions and tigers example (i.e. the premise), and "then it is never... packs" = our conclusion.

Wait! Can an assumption be something that the argument explicitly say?

[tiggy]

This thread has not been very active lately so I hope more people could join and maybe help me or someone else who may have a similar question.

Initially I chose B over C but now realize that B cannot be a sufficient assumption since we do not need to know there exists at least two species of predatory DINOSAURS. However my question is, if this answer choice was rephrased to say something along the lines of "There has existed at least one specie whose anatomy was virtually indistinguishable from that of a predatory dinosaur", would that answer be correct?

I think this is an assumption that the argument makes when comparing dinosaurs to tigers/lions, because if the dinosaur did not have an anatomy similar to any other specie (Whether another dinosaur or some other animal) then the argument would not make any sense because it would open the possibility that the dinosaur is unique and does not share any anatomical similarity with other animals. In which case, the argument would not be able to conclude by generalizing the tiger/lion situation to the dinosaur.

But now as I'm writing this I'm wondering if that assumption would actually be the correct answer since I am not sure if it would be sufficient to prove the conclusion. I know it would be necessary but since this is a sufficient assumption question I am not sure if it actually is sufficient. So i guess I have 2 questions that need to be answered.

I really hope someone can come forth and clear this up for me. Thanks in advance!

[lugar.choi]

No, even if there was at least two species of dinosaurs that had virtually indistinguishable anatomy, it still does not address the assumption.

Assumption (or the connection) you are looking for is skeletal anatomy of an animal IS NOT an indicator of its hunting behavior.

The reason Lions and Tigers were used was basically to SHOW that assumption. The existence of two or more extinct predatory animals with indistinguishable skeletal anatomy is irrelevant. YOU MUST connect skeletal anatomy TO hunting behaviors.

[Mab6q]

This thread has not been very active lately so I hope more people could join and maybe help me or someone else who may have a similar question.

Initially I chose B over C but now realize that B cannot be a sufficient assumption since we do not need to know there exists at least two species of predatory DINOSAURS. However my question is, if this answer choice was rephrased to say something along the lines of "There has existed at least one specie whose anatomy was virtually indistinguishable from that of a predatory dinosaur", would that answer be correct?

I think this is an assumption that the argument makes when comparing dinosaurs to tigers/lions, because if the dinosaur did not have an anatomy similar to any other specie (Whether another dinosaur or some other animal) then the argument would not make any sense because it would open the possibility that the dinosaur is unique and does not share any anatomical similarity with other animals. In which case, the argument would not be able to conclude by generalizing the tiger/lion situation to the dinosaur.

But now as I'm writing this I'm wondering if that assumption would actually be the correct answer since I am not sure if it would be sufficient to prove the conclusion. I know it would be necessary but since this is a sufficient assumption question I am not sure if it actually is sufficient. So i guess I have 2 questions that need to be answered.

I really hope someone can come forth and clear this up for me. Thanks in advance!

To add to the above explanation, an answer choice that solely provides a simple assumption in the argument is not going to work; we need a sufficient assumption that will completely fill out gap. That is, we need an answer choice that tells us that what is true for Lion and Tigers in regards to the relationship between skeleton structure and hunting behavior is also true for extinct predators such as dinosaurs. C does that perfectly.

[shirleyx]

(C) is a wordy way of restating our exact argument. "If skeletal anatomy alone...behavior" = our lions and tigers example (i.e. the premise), and "then it is never... packs" = our conclusion.

question: Is it okay to expect to have some sufficient assumption questions were the correct answer seems to be a restatement of the argument in the stimulus???

Danke!

[tommywallach]

Nope. Assumptions are NEVER a restatement. By definition, anything that is SAID isn't ASSUMED.

-t

[andrewgong01]

Would we call B a NA? It seems like the argument would need to assume that people are currently actually considering using similar skeletal anataonomy as a way to tell if they hunted in packs. Because if currently there are no similarities in extinct species (and/or no one thought of this metric) we will not be using similarities as a metric to begin with and hence this argument (though it does not fall part) is rather 'useless'

[EmilyL849]

Hi, all

This post has not been active in a while.
I have the same question as the above poster.

Could we call (B) a necessary assumption?

I can see (B) is insufficient to bridge the gap for sufficient assumption question, since we need to know the rules applicable to tiger and lion also influence extinct animals.


When we negate (B) "no extinct dinosaurs had similar skeletal anatomy". In other words, ALL dinosaurs had distinct bone structures. If dinosaurs had distinct structures, the maybe it is now possible to infer their hunting behaviors by looking at their unique bones. Although it cannot be said that hunting behaviors can definitively conjectured, but it is now possible that it could be so. Which would significantly weaken the conclusion.

Would you say this is correct?

Thank you (probably Patrick! )

[ohthatpatrick]

I hate to split hairs with a hypothetical question task, but I'd probably say

TECHNICALLY, (B) isn't a NA.
but ... it makes sense for people to see it that way and given that LSAT sometimes disappoints me with correct answers that aren't technically-correct, it probably COULD be a correct answer on NA.


I would say the author was not technically assuming anything about dinosaurs. The 'for example, certain dinosaurs' part of that conclusion is not integral to its truth value.

Also, I don't think the author is assuming there WERE, definitely, at least two species of dinosaur with near identical skeletal anatomy, one of whom hunted and one of whom did not.

She's only assuming IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE WERE, which is why she thinks that we can't make a certain inference.

If we touched up that part of (B) and said
(B) It is possible that there were at least two species ....

then, sure, let's call it an NA.

[AlizaS645]

I don't understand how C is sufficient: It says "IF skeletal anatomy alone is inadequate..." THEN it's never reasonable to infer...."

As mentioned above, the gap is that we don't know if the extinct predatory animals have the same trait as the lion and tigers of being anatomically so similar but hunting differently... Answer C does NOT tell us this is the case. It says IF this is the case...

The conclusion however says certainly that paleontologists cannot reasonable infer... So, let's assume that C is assumed but skeletal anatomy alone is always adequate - perhaps every extinct species is distinct based on anatomy etc. - then the conclusion cannot be drawn. Please explain..?

[smiller]

As mentioned above, the gap is that we don't know if the extinct predatory animals have the same trait as the lion and tigers of being anatomically so similar but hunting differently... Answer C does NOT tell us this is the case. It says IF this is the case...

The conclusion isn't about comparing the skeletal anatomy of different species. The conclusion is about determining whether an extinct species hunted in packs based solely on the skeletal anatomy of that species. It's basically stating that we can't look at the skeleton of an extinct animal and determine whether it hunted in packs based on the skeleton alone, without knowing anything else about the animal. There's nothing in the conclusion about comparing the skeletons of extinct species to each other, or to lions and tigers.

The comparison between different species is being used as evidence. The premises basically state that we can't look at a lion skeleton and tell, just from the skeleton, that lions hunt in packs. Why not? Because their skeletons are virtually identical to tiger skeletons, and tigers do not hunt in packs.

The problem with the original argument is that it does not explicitly state that this same reasoning can be applied to any other species. Choice (C) explicitly states that. It essentially states, "if we can't determine the hunting behavior of one species (lions) based solely on that species' skeletons, then we cannot determine whether any other species (like dinosaurs) hunted in packs based solely on that species' skeletons."