Q23 - It has been argued that the immense size of

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Role/Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: This is an overly hasty inference (translation: T-Rex may have still been a hunter, despite its immense size and presumably slow speed)
Evidence: If T-Rex's prey were bigger than T-Rex, then T-Rex would seemingly be faster than its prey.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion was the 2nd to last sentence. The support was the last sentence. They're asking us about a claim that was made in the "It has been argued" zone. Our author goes against that zone with a "however". So it's likely going to be something the author opposes.

Does the author oppose the idea that "T. rex could only have been a scavenger?" Yes, but lightly. Our author is saying that would be a hasty inference to make. Our author isn't trying to REFUTE the idea, but she is trying to show how it might be wrong.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Way too harsh! "Logically inconsistent" = contradictory. This author was not contradicting a hypothesis. She was just pointing out it could be otherwise.

(B) Maybe, but "probably false" is weird. When an author is saying "your argument failed", they aren't giving you any indication whether the conclusion is likely to be true or false. They're just indicating the presence of flaws or assumptions in your argument.

(C) YES, this is better. "Attempts to undermine" is a safer match for "overly hasty inference" than "probably false". Saying that someone made an "overly hasty inference" is saying that the inference was not automatically justified by the evidence. In other words, the evidence wasn't sufficient to justify making that inference. Our author is pointing out a blind spot in our evidence: was T. Rex running after smaller/faster prey or bigger/slower prey?

(D) This claim is not evidence. It is a conclusion drawn from the ideas that T. Rex was huge and thus T. Rex wouldn't have been able to chase down its prey.

(E) This claim is not evidence. It is also definitely not evidence FOR the author, since our prephrase was that this claim was an opposing idea.

Takeaway/Pattern: Structural clues should make it clear where all the parts are here.
IT HAS BEEN ARGUED that ____ since _____ .
Okay, we just got an opposing argument with a Conc and then a Prem.
HOWEVER, this is a hasty inference.
Here's the author's pushback. Since the last sentence supports the idea of hasty inference, the 2nd to last sentence was the conclusion. Last sentence was the premise.

The B vs. C conundrum that I'm assuming many will come down to involves a classic LSAT option of "picking the one you know deep down is wrong, instead of picking the one you don't understand". We can also get to (C) by reminding ourselves to be wary of strong language whenever we're describing the paragraph. Arguing something is "probably false" is stronger than "attempting to undermine" something.

#officialexplanation

[bobjon1259]

Correct Answer:
D


#officialexplanation

Patrick, thanks so much for the helpful explanation. However, your post erroneously states that the correct answer is D, even though you explained why (C) is correct.