Q24 - Biologist: Scientists have discovered

[smiller]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
The last sentence of the stimulus contains the main conclusion, that life may be able to arise under many difficult conditions throughout the universe. Immediately before this is an intermediate conclusion stating that the first life on Earth must have appeared soon after Earth formed, when conditions were extremely harsh. All of the statements that come before the intermediate conclusion are used to support the intermediate conclusion.

However, like the bacteria in the fossils, this argument is complex. The specific claim cited in the question stem—that the bacteria must have had a long evolutionary history—is itself a conclusion, supported by the premise that the bacteria were quite complex. This premise-conclusion relationship is indicated by the words "and so" in the second sentence of the stimulus.

Answer Anticipation:
The statement cited in the question stem is an intermediate conclusion that supports another intermediate conclusion, which in turn supports the main conclusion. Oh, you tricky, tricky LSAT!

Correct Answer:
(C)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is contradicted. The argument does provide support for the claim. Also note that this answer choice describes a claim that supports the conclusion "of the argument as a whole." The claim in question supports an intermediate conclusion, not the main conclusion.

(B) This is also contradicted. Like (A), this answer choice states that no support is provided, which isn't the case.

(C) This is correct. This describes the precise function of the claim in question: it is supported by the fact that the bacteria were complex, and in turn supports an intermediate conclusion, which then supports the main conclusion.

(D) This is contradicted. The claim in question does support something else in the argument.

(E) This is contradicted. The claim we're looking at supports a conclusion that does provide support for another.

Takeaway/Pattern: Determine the Function questions can be easy if you're good at identifying the different components of arguments, but the tougher ones can be exceptionally tricky. Watch out for intermediate conclusions, and pay attention to any indicator words like "so" or "because." Create a free Manhattan Prep account, download our flashcards, and test your skills with our "Name that Role" flashcard set.

#officialexplanation

[hyewonkim89]

Will someone please help me break down this stimulus?

I didn't think the mentioned sentence didn't have any support and was supporting the conclusion, the last sentence.

But the answer says otherwise.

Please help!

[JAREDTX1993]

I agree. I am totally not seeing the support for this

[icebreaker]

I agree. I am totally not seeing the support for this

Hi! I literally just finished reviewing this question. I'll give it a try.

So we are told that the scientists found bacteria in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old; this bacteria stuff is pretty complex. Because it is complex, it must have gone through some sort of evolution (think: many many many generations + years of crazy biological adaptations + major science processes) before it formed into a fossil.

However since we know how old Earth is, this bacteria must have formed soon after Earth's formation. Why? Because it needs time to actually begin evolving and go through a long history of evolution! The conclusion is the last line.

So back to the question...

I immediately eliminated (A) and (B) because it said that the claim in question has no support. Of course it does: the bacteria stuff was complex. That's our support for the claim that it must have had evolutionary history.

This claim then supports the next point about life appearing on Earth very early on when conditions were bad (long history, so probably appeared early on. See how it supported that?)

Now eliminate (D) because it says the claim did not support any other claim, but as explained above, it sure does!

Lastly, since it (the bacteria) formed when conditions were bad, the conclusion states that life was able to begin under such conditions.

From this, we can finally eliminate (E) because the second last sentence supported the main conclusion. (i.e., it is a premise, not a distinct conclusion of its own)

Answer (C):
- Support provided? Yes
- Used to support another claim? Yes
- That other claim was used to support the conclusion? Yup.

Instructor please feel free to correct!

[wxpttbh]

I hope this analysis help.
Premise 1
~budget allow for more dairy inspectors to be hired -> ~dairies meet federal standard
~dairy meet federal standard -> the disposal of natural wastes seeping into streams and groundwater.

premise 2
~new budge allow for more dairy inspector to be hired.
_____________________________
Conclusion : drinking water is likely to become polluted.

The structure seems like:
~A --> ~B
~B --> C
~A
____________________
D

SO WHAT YOU NEED IS"~A -> ~B -> C--> D "

The choice C is in structure like that.