- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#73120
Complete Question Explanation
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (C).
A scientists discovers collagen in the bones of a dinosaur, and that collagen has proteins that turn out to be very similar to those found in the collagen in the bones of chickens. The author uses this information to bolster claims that dinosaurs are related to birds. There is a small but subtle gap in this argument, in that the evidence is about a similarity between a dinosaur and a bird, and the conclusion is about a relationship between them.
When asked about answering a question in order to evaluate an argument, you must consider what it is that you need to know. Ask yourself the important question, the answer to which will help you either strengthen or weaken the argument. If there is a gap in the argument, as there is here, you need to know if the author's leap over that gap is justified. Does that similarity indicate a relationship? Or could it be that two things with similar collagen proteins are unrelated? Select the answer that asks what you should have asked.
Answer choice (A): Would the answer to this question do anything to strengthen or weaken the argument? The stimulus already implied that it must be rare, or else Schweitzer probably would not have made headlines for doing so, so this question appears to already be answered. Answering it again sheds no light on the argument and does not close the gap between the similarity and the possible relationship.
Answer choice (B): This question has also already been answered by the stimulus, as the author said there is already a mountain of such evidence. Answering it again won't help us determine the evidentiary value of the similarity between the proteins in this case.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Here we have a question that goes to the heart of the matter. Apply the Variance Test to this answer - what if the answer is that it is completely likely that unrelated animals would have similar collagen proteins, a virtual certainty, 100%? That would mean that the similarity tells us nothing, and the argument falls apart. And what if the odds of such a similarity were absolute zero, no chance at all of unrelated animals having similar collagen proteins? Then this evidence essentially proves the conclusion of the argument. That is the effect we want to see in the correct answer to any Evaluate the Argument question, and what makes this the credited response.
Answer choice (D): An interesting question here, but do the answers matter all that much to our argument? Let's say yes, it is possible that T. Rex is closer to a chicken than to, say, the Diplodocus whose neck we looked at earlier in this section. Would that strengthen the claim that dinosaurs are closely related to birds? Not really, because "closer" (a relative term) is not the same as "close" (an absolute claim). And what if the answer is no, there is no possibility that T. Rex is closer to chickens than to other dinos? That doesn't weaken the argument because there still could be a close relationship between dinos and birds. This answer, while fun to think about, is a loser.
Answer choice (E): It doesn't make any difference in our analysis whether scientists had considered this possibility of not. This issue is only whether the similarity indicates a close relationship, and this answer fails to ask that crucial question.
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (C).
A scientists discovers collagen in the bones of a dinosaur, and that collagen has proteins that turn out to be very similar to those found in the collagen in the bones of chickens. The author uses this information to bolster claims that dinosaurs are related to birds. There is a small but subtle gap in this argument, in that the evidence is about a similarity between a dinosaur and a bird, and the conclusion is about a relationship between them.
When asked about answering a question in order to evaluate an argument, you must consider what it is that you need to know. Ask yourself the important question, the answer to which will help you either strengthen or weaken the argument. If there is a gap in the argument, as there is here, you need to know if the author's leap over that gap is justified. Does that similarity indicate a relationship? Or could it be that two things with similar collagen proteins are unrelated? Select the answer that asks what you should have asked.
Answer choice (A): Would the answer to this question do anything to strengthen or weaken the argument? The stimulus already implied that it must be rare, or else Schweitzer probably would not have made headlines for doing so, so this question appears to already be answered. Answering it again sheds no light on the argument and does not close the gap between the similarity and the possible relationship.
Answer choice (B): This question has also already been answered by the stimulus, as the author said there is already a mountain of such evidence. Answering it again won't help us determine the evidentiary value of the similarity between the proteins in this case.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Here we have a question that goes to the heart of the matter. Apply the Variance Test to this answer - what if the answer is that it is completely likely that unrelated animals would have similar collagen proteins, a virtual certainty, 100%? That would mean that the similarity tells us nothing, and the argument falls apart. And what if the odds of such a similarity were absolute zero, no chance at all of unrelated animals having similar collagen proteins? Then this evidence essentially proves the conclusion of the argument. That is the effect we want to see in the correct answer to any Evaluate the Argument question, and what makes this the credited response.
Answer choice (D): An interesting question here, but do the answers matter all that much to our argument? Let's say yes, it is possible that T. Rex is closer to a chicken than to, say, the Diplodocus whose neck we looked at earlier in this section. Would that strengthen the claim that dinosaurs are closely related to birds? Not really, because "closer" (a relative term) is not the same as "close" (an absolute claim). And what if the answer is no, there is no possibility that T. Rex is closer to chickens than to other dinos? That doesn't weaken the argument because there still could be a close relationship between dinos and birds. This answer, while fun to think about, is a loser.
Answer choice (E): It doesn't make any difference in our analysis whether scientists had considered this possibility of not. This issue is only whether the similarity indicates a close relationship, and this answer fails to ask that crucial question.
) had similar collagen proteins as dinosaurs and chickens, then the evidence is essentially worthless. But, what if we knew that only dinosaurs and chickens (or other birds, really) had similar proteins? That evidence then suddenly becomes very valuable in proving a link between the two.