Q8 - Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws

[tara_amber1]

This is part of a two-question stem, but the one I'm referring to is the "Describe the Argument" question, Q8 to clarify.

Correct Answer: (C)

The Paleontologist responds to the Ornithologist by rejecting his supporting evidence for the conclusion that the Archeopteryx was probably a tree-dwelling creature. The Paleontologist uses an analogy in which chickens (who have curved claws) spend time in trees, but they're mostly ground-dwelling.

(A) This is an attack on the ornithologist as a person and doesn't describe the paleontologist's response.

(B) The paleontologist does undermine the first speaker's claim, but doesn't question the validity of them flat out. Keep for now.

(C) This one sounds a lot better than (B), and is the analogy or "parallel case" we were anticipating. This is the correct answer.

(D) The second speaker doesn't point out any contradictions within two premises or a premise and a conclusion of the ornithologist, he just provides a similar example.

(E) The second speaker doesn't support the first speaker. He rejects his supporting evidence and provides the first speaker's reasoning to a similar case.

Hope this helps!

[uhdang]

Hi, I have a question regarding C)

When you say "parallel case", shouldn't the case contain the same logical condition but different subject? I was expecting a parallel case to a given case of Archeopteryx would be, "Seagull has an ability to perch on a tree, so Seagull is a tree-dwelling animal." So, I thought that presenting a parallel case wouldn't prove anything, so I eliminated C).. Regarding "weakness", since parallel case wouldn't prove anything so claiming for weakness itself was wrong as well. Reasonings for incorrect answers are clear, but not crystal clear for the right answer choice..

Clarification would be helpful, please.

[christine.defenbaugh]

That's a really excellent question, uhdang!

You are essentially correct that a parallel case would have the same logical condition, but you're taking the meaning of that just a bit too far. Here, the matched "logical condition" would be "something that has the ability to perch in trees". You're carrying it one step further though, and thinking that the parallelism would necessarily extend to the outcome of that initial logical condition (whether the creature was, in fact, tree-dwelling).

We could probably argue back and forth for quite some time over whether "parallel case" really ought to include the logical outcome or not. Clearly the LSAT, here, thinks it does not need to. So, how to deal with situations like this in the future?

If a word or phrase is in play the semantics of which reasonable minds could easily disagree about, the best bet is the give the LSAT leeway. Since it is not patently UNreasonable for "parallel case" to simply mean "case with the same starting condition", you should explore what would happen if that were the way it should be read. If something has two completely reasonable definitions, you'd want to eliminate it for being incorrect under both views.

Another red flag for this sort of thinking is that your definition would make the answer choice essentially nonsensical. While the LSAT does sometimes provide nonsensical answers, if a slight/reasonable semantic shift would make the answer choice make sense, that's a more likely interpretation.

And lastly, if four answers are wrong for reasons that can't be argued away on semantics, that should be a bright signal to take a hard look at the remaining answer!!

Let me know if this helped a bit!

[uhdang]

While I was analyzing the parallel case one more time with your response about the "including outcome", I was able to see a hidden assumption that I missed before that furtively confused me.

So, the essential parallel case goes like this:

O: Having curvature of the claws that allows Archeopteryx to perch on tree ==> probably tree-dwelling.
P: Chickens spending time perched in trees ==> ground-dwelling.

Here, when Paleontologist is initiating argument, since his/she words aren't exactly only-switching-the-subject kind of structure, that also confused me to apply "parallel" here. But when I think more about it, Chickens spending time perched in trees would imply, or assume that Chicken has the curvature of the claws that allow it to perch on tree. Maybe I'm too obsessed about little detail, but when I read it, I sensed some distortion but didn't really point out, and this uncertainty snow-balled the confusion about being parallel.

After figuring out this assumption, I can see clearly that they do look "parallel", assuming we are not including "outcome." And I agree that structure without outcome could be said to be parallel. Thanks for the reply.

Another red flag for this sort of thinking is that your definition would make the answer choice essentially nonsensical. While the LSAT does sometimes provide nonsensical answers, if a slight/reasonable semantic shift would make the answer choice make sense, that's a more likely interpretation.

I really agree with this, too. I think essentially this "flexibility", or rather "IMAGINATION" that fills in slight/reasonable semantic shift is what makes one a better thinker. (and of course, better at LSAT)

Thanks for help!