Q7 - Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees

[opulence2001]

Hello,

For question 7 could someone please clarify why question D is incorrect?

Also I still do not see why Q8 is B. The prints of another species seems out of scope at first, and then the fact that the big toe is on the outside and the smallest of the inside seemed irrelevant because the evidence given did not specify as much.

I chose D because it seemed like the best answer since the evidence could be distorted for conclusion to be drawn.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting, and sorry for the delayed response!

For question 7, the reason (D) is incorrect is that neither paleontologist weighs in on the issue of how much evidence you need to support a conclusion. That is, the disagreement is about what can be inferred from the evidence, not about whether there is enough evidence to draw any conclusion.

To understand why (B) is the answer for number 8, we have to make sure we understand the evidence brought up in the stimulus. It appears that the footprints discovered, though similar in shape to humans', differs in an important way: the "left" foot is on the right, and the "right" foot is on the left. As Dr. Rees says, for hominids to make those footprints, they would have to walk in a bizarre cross-stepping pattern.

Now if it turns out that a certain species of bear has footprints very similar to humans', except the order of the toes is reversed, then those bears would leave footprints just like the ones in question. (Look at your feet. If your big toe and little toe switched places, your right foot would look more like a left foot, and vice versa.) So if (B) is true, then it's much more likely that the footprints were left by bears than by early hominids, so Dr. Tyson's conclusion is weakened.

Does that answer your question?

[geverett]

Gilad,
I am still having a hard time understanding #7. I chose D, but on second glance it looks as though D is wrong because it's not that they disagree over whether "evidence from one paleontologic site is enough to support a conclusion." It's the fact that they differ over what conclusion the evidence supports - Rees drawing the conclusion that the footprints are not from early hominids and Tyson drawing the conclusion that the footprints are from early hominids. They both draw conclusions from the evidence but they just draw different conclusions. What do you think Gilad?

Also answer choice A threw me because of the phrase "relative significance". Could you go deeper with answer choice A for me? Pretend I have never seen an LSAT, and that you have to explain it to me from that point of view. =)

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

I agree with you that the two paleontologists draw different conclusions. However, what you're overlooking is that they also use different pieces of evidence: Dr. Tyson bases his conclusion on the human characteristics of the footprints, whereas Dr. Rees bases his conclusion on the "unexpected cross-stepping manner" suggested by the prints. Because the two paleontologists focus on two different pieces of evidence, we can indeed say that they disagree about "the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence." Dr. Tyson thinks the human characteristics are more significant, while Dr. Rees thinks the weird pattern is more significant.

Does that make sense, or are you still confused?

[geverett]

That makes sense. Thanks!

[MayMay]

since we're talking about q8 on here...

quick summary: Dr T: looks at evidence of footprint to say it shows human characteristic.
Dr R: rejects dr. T's conclusion. why? because if the footprints were human, then it'd show awkward manner of walking.

question 8 asks what can weaken Dr. T.
so we're looking for something that says it's probably not humans.

SO for 8, what about choice (C)?
wouldn't that just make certain that early humans in fact did not walk in an awkward manner? meaning, the footprints cannot be that of humans because hey look- at site G, there are human footprints without that awkward walking pattern.

[burqin]

Thanks for posting!

I agree with you that the two paleontologists draw different conclusions. However, what you're overlooking is that they also use different pieces of evidence: Dr. Tyson bases his conclusion on the human characteristics of the footprints, whereas Dr. Rees bases his conclusion on the "unexpected cross-stepping manner" suggested by the prints. Because the two paleontologists focus on two different pieces of evidence, we can indeed say that they disagree about "the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence." Dr. Tyson thinks the human characteristics are more significant, while Dr. Rees thinks the weird pattern is more significant.

Does that make sense, or are you still confused?

I don't think so. Still I take D as the correct answer. Only if the aspect of Tyson and the aspect of Rees of the evidence is incompatible, you can discuss the issue of significance of the aspects of the evidence. In that case the two aspects have a duel and the more significant wins out. However, the two aspects of the evidence are perfectly compatible. They don't have to play a duel. According to T, the T aspect of the evidence (the squarish heel and a big toe bla bla) is enough to support the conclusion of hominid footprints. However, the R aspect of the evidence (clumsy gait) doesn't conflict with the T aspect of the evidence, it just point out that if it's hominid footprints, absurd conclusions will entail. So the T aspect only could not be enough to support the conclusion of hominid footprints.

T aspect of the evidence could support that the footprints belong to humans or bears, not ONLY humans. So it is not enough to conclude they are huminid footprints.

[burqin]

Thanks for posting!

I agree with you that the two paleontologists draw different conclusions. However, what you're overlooking is that they also use different pieces of evidence: Dr. Tyson bases his conclusion on the human characteristics of the footprints, whereas Dr. Rees bases his conclusion on the "unexpected cross-stepping manner" suggested by the prints. Because the two paleontologists focus on two different pieces of evidence, we can indeed say that they disagree about "the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence." Dr. Tyson thinks the human characteristics are more significant, while Dr. Rees thinks the weird pattern is more significant.

Does that make sense, or are you still confused?

In my understanding, evidence is the fact supporting some conclusion. Fact is fact, all or nothing. Since it's a fact, it's an "all". Whatever the aspect is , it's the fact. Tyson's aspect of the evidence is a full fact (squarish heel bla bla) and Rees's (nonhuman sequence of the toes) is also a full fact. The contrast of these two cannot be the significance of the facts, that is, one is full and another is not full. What could be compared is the implications of the two facts. T's implication is "huminid footprints" and R's implication is "not necessarily huminid footprints". Because of the R implication, the T asepct of the evidence is not enough to support the T implication or conclusion of "huminid footprints".

[adisadeliovsky]

I agree... I do not see how these two scientists are disagreeing over the relative significance of various aspects of the evidence... each of their evidences are compatible with one another.

Dr tyson states: they are clearly hominid footprints, since they show human characteristics: square heel, and big toe blah blah, while Dr. Rees says Nope! that doesn't prove they were hominids, WHY? because if hominids made those prints they would have had to walk in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot, Dr. Rees rejects Dr. Tyson's conclusion.

So where are they disagreeing over the relative significance of various aspects of evidence?

Significance means: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

Both of their evidence is significance, because Dr. T's evidence evidence allows Dr. Rees to DISAGREE with his evidence, if Dr. T had no arguments, what would Dr. Ree's evidence countering? What would the revelence of Dr. Ree's evidence even be?

Could someone please explain this further, I really HATE the way question A is worded.

[Ga HyunK147]

I'm not a tutor, but this is what I tried to convince myself.

I think for D to be correct, the stimulus shouldn't simply say Rees rejects Tyson's conclusion, but rather say something like because of the unexpected cross stepping pattern, Rees concludes that the evidence at the site is insufficient to support Tyson's conclusion. If so, Rees would be disagreeing to D and Tyson would be agreeing to D.

Right now, Rees also make a conclusion saying footprints are not early hominid footprints. So basically, Rees is also sharing the assumption that a conclusion can be drawn solely from one site.

It would be nice to have someone review my thought process!