Q7 - Very little is known about

[LSAT-Chang]

I had this one down to (A) and (D). I was fortunate to pick the correct answer, but still have problem understanding why (A) would be wrong.

The core I had was (since this is a principle-support ques):

skeletal fractures of hominid cave dwellers similar to rodeo riders therefore likely that hominid cave dwellers engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders - chasing and tackling animals.

Is (A) wrong because it only addresses the premise and not the conclusion? I thought it was a broad principle that if applied, would hold the argument together -- since it talks about the "lives of prehistoric hominids" which can be a broader scope of "chasing and tackling animals" and the fact about the skeletal remains being the primary source, I thought it covered both aspects of the core but please correct me if I am wrong.

As for (D).. I was a bit confused with this abstract language. So are the two effects mentioned here "skeletal fractures" and the causes "activities similar to rodeo riders"?? So since the skeletal fractures are similar, both must have been caused by something similar (i.e. chasing and tackling animals)??

[timmydoeslsat]

I had this one down to (A) and (D). I was fortunate to pick the correct answer, but still have problem understanding why (A) would be wrong.

The core I had was (since this is a principle-support ques):

skeletal fractures of hominid cave dwellers similar to rodeo riders therefore likely that hominid cave dwellers engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders - chasing and tackling animals.

Is (A) wrong because it only addresses the premise and not the conclusion? I thought it was a broad principle that if applied, would hold the argument together -- since it talks about the "lives of prehistoric hominids" which can be a broader scope of "chasing and tackling animals" and the fact about the skeletal remains being the primary source, I thought it covered both aspects of the core but please correct me if I am wrong.

As for (D).. I was a bit confused with this abstract language. So are the two effects mentioned here "skeletal fractures" and the causes "activities similar to rodeo riders"?? So since the skeletal fractures are similar, both must have been caused by something similar (i.e. chasing and tackling animals)??

I like the core as you have described it.

Core:

Study reveals skeletal fractures are most like type of rodeo riders.

-----> Therefore....

Likely they engaged in similar activities.

This is a flawed argument. A valid conclusion is airtight. This is not valid. It makes a leap.

It is assuming that you can judge likelihood of causes because of similar effects.

You cannot say that something is likely (more than 50%) because of similar effects.

Maybe these cave dwellers were vegetarians and did not even mess with animals!

So this argument needs some help to justify it with a principle.

Answer choices:

A) If we insert this into the argument, would it help justify the conclusion? No! It does not help us with the leap of it being likely (more than 50%) that the effects are the result of similar causes. Even if it is the case that skeletal remains are the primary source of information about these prehistoric hominids, that does not help us with the leap made in the conclusion.

This answer choice is really just a premise booster. It says, "Hey, remember those skeletal remains we found, that is actually a primary source of what we know about their lives!"

B) Who cares what the most important aspect is to be studied?

C) If direct evidence is available as to the cause of an event ---> then indirect should not be sought.

This conditional gives us irrelevant information about seeking evidence.

We do not know what constitutes direct or indirect evidence either.

D) If similarity between two effects ---> then probably (aka likely) a similarity between their causes

Love it!

We have a case of similarity of two effects...fractures of hominids and fractures of rodeo riders, then we can conclude LIKELY similarity of causes!

E) Talks about frequency of injuries. We have no information about this and what to make of it.

[LSAT-Chang]

I had this one down to (A) and (D). I was fortunate to pick the correct answer, but still have problem understanding why (A) would be wrong.

The core I had was (since this is a principle-support ques):

skeletal fractures of hominid cave dwellers similar to rodeo riders therefore likely that hominid cave dwellers engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders - chasing and tackling animals.

Is (A) wrong because it only addresses the premise and not the conclusion? I thought it was a broad principle that if applied, would hold the argument together -- since it talks about the "lives of prehistoric hominids" which can be a broader scope of "chasing and tackling animals" and the fact about the skeletal remains being the primary source, I thought it covered both aspects of the core but please correct me if I am wrong.

As for (D).. I was a bit confused with this abstract language. So are the two effects mentioned here "skeletal fractures" and the causes "activities similar to rodeo riders"?? So since the skeletal fractures are similar, both must have been caused by something similar (i.e. chasing and tackling animals)??

I like the core as you have described it.

Core:

Study reveals skeletal fractures are most like type of rodeo riders.

-----> Therefore....

Likely they engaged in similar activities.

This is a flawed argument. A valid conclusion is airtight. This is not valid. It makes a leap.

It is assuming that you can judge likelihood of causes because of similar effects.

You cannot say that something is likely (more than 50%) because of similar effects.

Maybe these cave dwellers were vegetarians and did not even mess with animals!

So this argument needs some help to justify it with a principle.

Answer choices:

A) If we insert this into the argument, would it help justify the conclusion? No! It does not help us with the leap of it being likely (more than 50%) that the effects are the result of similar causes. Even if it is the case that skeletal remains are the primary source of information about these prehistoric hominids, that does not help us with the leap made in the conclusion.

This answer choice is really just a premise booster. It says, "Hey, remember those skeletal remains we found, that is actually a primary source of what we know about their lives!"

B) Who cares what the most important aspect is to be studied?

C) If direct evidence is available as to the cause of an event ---> then indirect should not be sought.

This conditional gives us irrelevant information about seeking evidence.

We do not know what constitutes direct or indirect evidence either.

D) If similarity between two effects ---> then probably (aka likely) a similarity between their causes

Love it!

We have a case of similarity of two effects...fractures of hominids and fractures of rodeo riders, then we can conclude LIKELY similarity of causes!

E) Talks about frequency of injuries. We have no information about this and what to make of it.

I love your explanation. It totally cleared everything up for me. I wish I could thank you a hundred times for this post (the other ones were also extremely helpful). Thank you soooo much! I hope you can help me out with the other ones if you have time and would like to (I am in this forum 24/7 -- make posts to at least 10~20 problems each week)!!

[timmydoeslsat]

I love Manhattan LSAT and will get to all of your questions tomorrow hopefully!

[hyewonkim89]

Hello,

When I saw the answer choice A, I was for sure it was the right one and just moved on without even looking at other answer choices.

The second time I did the problem after finding out I got it wrong, I picked the right answer, only because I knew A was the wrong answer.

I know tommydoeslsat already explained it well above, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how this is a question about causes and effects.

If the primary source of clues about the lives of prehistoric hominids is their skeletal remains, wouldn't it justify the argument that their lives probably were similar because of their skeletal remains? If the skeletal remains weren't the primary source to find clues about prehistoric hominids' lives, wouldn't it crush the argument by giving out an idea that maybe there are other sources that make them similar?

I would greatly appreciate anyone's help!

(Sorry if I'm not making any sense)

[ohthatpatrick]

I had a little trouble understanding your post because I wasn't always sure who you meant by "their" / or "similar to WHAT" when you were saying "similar".

The argument is making this leap:
old hominids had skeletal fractures that are similar to what present day rodeo riders have.
Thus
old hominids probably got those skeletal fractures the same way present day rodeo riders got theirs.

Whenever you're doing a Principle question (asking which Principle would most justify or conform to the argument), you should be looking for an answer that is 1/2 premise, 1/2 conclusion ... i.e. you can match up part of it to the premise and part of it to the conclusion.

Almost without exception the correct answer to any Principle question has this feature.

(D) is definitely worded in an unlikely fashion. I wouldn't have gone to the answers expecting that the "gap" was all about causes and effects. But I would have understood that this argument was based on an analogy.

Since hominids and rodeo riders had the same injuries, hominids and rodeo riders probably also got the injuries the same way.

(Because X and Y have A in common, X and Y probably also have B in common)

(D) is definitely appealing because it's pointing to the comparison between hominids / rodeo riders that takes in the premise and then to the other comparison between them that takes place in the conclusion.

Since we're talking about 'injuries' and 'the behavior that led to those injuries', it's possible to swap out those terms for 'effect' and 'cause'.

(A) is only concerned with the evidence. It somewhat strengthens our trust in the evidence. However, a primary source of clues does not mean the same thing as "the best" or "most reliable" source of clues.

Suppose I was doing some pre-1st date snooping of the girl I was about to date. I might have the one paragraph email she wrote me, and then I might have her Facebook page as my other source of clues.

Well, perhaps the email is short, while her Facebook wall has pages and pages of friends leaving comments. The Facebook wall might be my primary source of clues, even though the email straight from the girl herself is probably a more reliable source.

So if we negate (A) (which we generally wouldn't want to do for this type of question), it does not weaken.

If I say that the girl's email to me is NOT my primary source of clues, that doesn't mean that I can't trust everything she said in the email.

Similarly, whether skeletal remains are the "primary" source of clues is much less crucial/relevant to this argument than whether skeletal remains are a "reliable" source of clues.

But let's get back to the CORE issue, pun intended.

(A) has nothing to do with the conclusion.

Consider this argument:
A recent study of hominid skeletal remains revealed that they had double-jointed thumbs. Therefore, it is likely that they made lots of puppets.

Which answer strengthens this argument more?
1 - The primary source of clues about the lives of these hominids is their skeletal remains
or
2 - Having double-jointed thumbs is a trait frequently associated with puppet-making

Hopefully, you agree that 2 is much better.

1 only helps us to trust the evidence. It doesn't help us judge the interpretation of the evidence (the conclusion). It doesn't bridge the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Hope this helps.

[hyewonkim89]

Thank you ohthatpatrick! Your explanation was REALLY helpful. Especially with your Facebook/email example

I will watch out when I use pronouns next time I leave questions!