Q27

[rachzk213]

Would someone please point out where Choice A, B and E are mentioned in the passage?

[agutman]

Question Type: Inference (56-58)

In order to solve this question, it might be easier to find four answer choices that the author would be likely to agree with (and cross them out). Answer choice (C) goes against the evidence from Speke’s research, and is therefore the correct answer (probably sufficient to keep the species from becoming extinct is very different from making the species abundant).

(A) isn’t really saying much. The little that is said here goes together with the author’s side of the argument, so should be easy to cross this one out.
(B) is a bit more tempting, because it’s on Temple’s side (against the author). However, like (A), this answer is not saying much either: even the author would admit that it’s plausible that the thickness of the pit could be a factor.
(D) is true, based on Speke’s findings (lines 56-58).
(E) is also supported by Speke’s findings (lines 56-58).

[jm.kahn]

I found it pretty hard to eliminate answers for this question and many answer choices seem to be related to issues not discussed in the passage.

There is no evidence in the passage about A that "causes of the evolution of the tree's particularly durable pit wall have not been definitively identified by Temple's critics." So how can we say that author would agree with it or not?

B: Line 55-56 say that "only a minority of unabraded seeds germinate," we don't know anything about what %age of abraded ones germinate, so how can we claim author agrees with a very specific notion mentioned in B?

Any LSAT expert clarify this with solid reasons?
Just because issues mentioned in A and B are not clearly discussed in the passage can't be a sufficient reason to think that the author would agree with them.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct --- the right answer doesn't need to contradict.

I know what you mean, as I would generally equate "implies / suggests / infer / most likely to agree" as question stems. And an Inference-EXCEPT question stem is definitely saying, "four of these have support / one does not have support".

However, if we read the question stem literally, it is asking for the choice that the author "would NOT be likely to agree with".

So it's not too far from the gist of contradicting.

Whenever I'm doing a "most likely to agree" question, I primarily use extreme language as my guide.

(A) has not been definitively identified = SUPER weak
(because saying it HAS been DEFINITIVELY identified = super strong)

(B) same as (A). Very weak wording, since "DEFINITELY discredited" is a very strong idea. Any time you rule out strong, you're dealing with weak (and vice versa).

(E) X can occur, even if Y isn't true. This is also super weak, since you only need ONE example to prove it's possible.

(C) "it's surprising"
(D) "there is good reason to believe"

These are stronger than the other three.

(A) There really is no explicit support that I see for this. But it seems reasonable to assume that if scientists had definitively identified the REAL cause for the thick walls of the pits, that discovery would have been worth mentioning in the last paragraph.

The function of the last paragraph is to summarize the push-back from other scientists against Temple's hypothesis. A huge part of Temple's hypothesis is that the pits of the CM trees evolved in coordination with the dodo species. If you wanted to shoot down Temple's hypothesis, one of the most direct ways you could do so would be to say, "No, dum-dum. THIS is the reason the CM trees evolved thick walled pits."

The fact that we DON'T see that concrete objection implies that scientists don't have an alternative, definitive explanation for why the pits have thick walls.

(B) "strongly challenged" in 46 is pretty damaging, but not the same as "refuted". Line 57 says the proportion of unabraded CM seeds that germinate is probably sufficient to keep the species alive. Line 59 says that the CM extinction could be due to other factors. There's nothing definitive here. That's why the author would likely agree with (B).

(C) This seems to actively go AGAINST what we're reading in the passage. The current rate of germination is in line 56, "only a minority" of unabraded seeds germinate ... making it PROBABLY possible for the species to avoid extinction.

From THAT, would our author say, "Wow, given that ONLY A MINORITY germinate, I would think that the tree would be ABUNDANT!"

So (A) and (B) do not come off a specific line reference, but they fit the gist / tone / strength of claims made in the last paragraph.

Meanwhile, (C) seems to go AGAINST the gist / tone / strength of claims made in the last paragraph.

Certainly, I see while you feel like (A) and (B) seem more speculative, but it is likely the author would agree to those claims, because otherwise we're saying, "No I think the author would likely say that they HAVE definitively identified the cause of the thick pit walls and they HAVE definitively discredited Temple's hypothesis."

[jm.kahn]

You're correct --- the right answer doesn't need to contradict.

I know what you mean, as I would generally equate "implies / suggests / infer / most likely to agree" as question stems. And an Inference-EXCEPT question stem is definitely saying, "four of these have support / one does not have support".

However, if we read the question stem literally, it is asking for the choice that the author "would NOT be likely to agree with".

So it's not too far from the gist of contradicting.

Certainly, I see while you feel like (A) and (B) seem more speculative, but it is likely the author would agree to those claims, because otherwise we're saying, "No I think the author would likely say that they HAVE definitively identified the cause of the thick pit walls and they HAVE definitively discredited Temple's hypothesis."

I am not sure how the bolded one is a reasonable translation of what the question stem is asking us to do. The q-stem is saying "Author would likely agree with each EXCEPT". This means that there will be four non-credited choices that author would agree with and one credited choice for which either the author has no opinion or which he disagrees with. This is certainly not the same as "author would not be likely to agree with" in the bolded, as the bolded transation suggests that the only choice that could be correct is the one author disagrees with. But according to the q-stem, a choice for which author's opinion is not known can also be credited. This distinction is tested in a variety of LSAT questions, e.g. strengthen-EXCEPT questions where the credited choice only has to be neutral and not necessarily a weaken. The bolded logic glosses over this very clear distinction.

In light of this, I still don't see how A and B are acceptable as non-credited choices as they are not discussed and they can't be inferred. Anyone has explanation for the above?

[hanhansummer]

You're correct --- the right answer doesn't need to contradict.

I know what you mean, as I would generally equate "implies / suggests / infer / most likely to agree" as question stems. And an Inference-EXCEPT question stem is definitely saying, "four of these have support / one does not have support".

However, if we read the question stem literally, it is asking for the choice that the author "would NOT be likely to agree with".

So it's not too far from the gist of contradicting.

Certainly, I see while you feel like (A) and (B) seem more speculative, but it is likely the author would agree to those claims, because otherwise we're saying, "No I think the author would likely say that they HAVE definitively identified the cause of the thick pit walls and they HAVE definitively discredited Temple's hypothesis."

I am not sure how the bolded one is a reasonable translation of what the question stem is asking us to do. The q-stem is saying "Author would likely agree with each EXCEPT". This means that there will be four non-credited choices that author would agree with and one credited choice for which either the author has no opinion or which he disagrees with. This is certainly not the same as "author would not be likely to agree with" in the bolded, as the bolded transation suggests that the only choice that could be correct is the one author disagrees with. But according to the q-stem, a choice for which author's opinion is not known can also be credited. This distinction is tested in a variety of LSAT questions, e.g. strengthen-EXCEPT questions where the credited choice only has to be neutral and not necessarily a weaken. The bolded logic glosses over this very clear distinction.

In light of this, I still don't see how A and B are acceptable as non-credited choices as they are not discussed and they can't be inferred. Anyone has explanation for the above?

As I read this question stem, my purpose is to find four answers that the author would be likely to agree with, a one answer he may not imply any attitude or hold an opposite attitude. And as I read choice A and B, the answer to whether the author is possible to agree with these two statements depends on whether the author presents definite argument that indicate a absolute conclusion.

A leads to line 20 and the hypothesis of Temple on the causes of the evolution of the tree's particularly durable pit wall. But the last paragraph which mainly presents Temple's critics' arguments do not address this hypothesis. Instead, they deal with the relationship between extinction, generation and thickness of the wall of the tree. Therefore, it is appropriate to say these critics have not definitely identified the causes of the evolution of the tree's durable pit wall.

B: I think the words the test maker used in this choice is an indication that it is right. He used "contributing to" instead of "determining", and "the decline of the tree" instead of "the extinction of the tree". The author said ”only a minority of unabraded seeds germinate” [line 56], though ”it could be due to other factors“” that caused the tree's declining population [line 59], he didn't completely eliminate the possibility that thickness of the wall could contribute to the population decline. So even not as a necessary condition or sufficient condition, thickness of the wall could still play a role in the population decline which has not definitively discredited by the author.

Hope it helps.