#13 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Organization

[Adam Tyson]

I can see how you might see it that way, but I'm still not sure you could say that those are "various explanations" that are advanced (suggested as possibly true) and then evaluated (analyzed for both pros and cons). It's more like the author is saying that these are strange aspects of the findings that Olsen is able to resolve with her hypothesis. Nobody, including the author, is offering these possible alternatives as explanations of the findings, but rather showing that these would be mistakes IF someone were to offer them as explanations.

Only one person offers an explanation, and that's Olsen. That's why answer A does not accurately describe what happened here.

For answer A to be a viable option, the passage would have had to be built like this:

1. Description of findings
2. Possible explanation offered and evaluated
3. Second possible explanation offered and evaluated
4. Third possible explanation offered and evaluated

You would expect that to be fleshed out with some details, like the first explanation being "some people have claimed that this is what happened," or "Professor Jones hypothesized this thing," and then the author would show the reasons they offered and then identify problems in that reasoning. But this passage instead is built around "this might seem strange, but Olsen has an explanation that works." Evidence that seems confusing is shown to fit her hypothesis. Nobody advanced an alternative explanation for any of it.

[arvinm123]

my issue with the correct answer choice D) stems from it's indication that the passage starts out by outlining a hypothesis. I cannot pinpoint a specific hypothesis in the first paragraph. I think someone else in this thread said the hypothesis was introduced as "archaeologist Sandra Olsen has assembled what may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses", but to me, this doesn't seem like a hypothesis being posited at all.

Can someone help explain what I am missing?

[Adam Tyson]

The hypothesis is not explicitly stated as such, arvinm123, but it is Olsen's hypothesis that the Botai people domesticated and rode horses. She bases her hypothesis on the evidence gathered about the mortality patterns of horses from their bones at the site.

[H714W7]

What does the word hypothesis mean on the LSAT? I thought the first paragraph was describing her conclusion -- what she had arrived at after evaluating the evidence. Does hypothesis" suggest she came up with the idea first and then looked at the bones to see if they confirmed it? I don't see how would we be able to tell that that is the case from this passage.

I also don't understand what makes the other passages "a line of reasoning." To me it seems like a discussion of evidence and how it helped Olsen develop her conclusion.

I don't want to be overly detail-focused but I had ruled this answer choice out; any suggestions for how to understand the wording here better?

[Adam Tyson]

Without turning to the dictionary, I'll say that the LSAT often uses "hypothesis" and "conclusion" as almost synonymous, H714W7. More often, though, hypothesis is used to an idea that someone thinks might be true based on at least some evidence, even if it isn't entirely conclusive. Sometimes they suggest this hypothesis but never test it, while other times, as here, they seek to test it and examine evidence to see if it favors or disfavors their idea.

The first paragraph did not explicitly state that this is Olsen's hypothesis, but that becomes clear as the passage develops. Olsen thinks the data doesn't make sense if the Botai were only hunting horses or else raising them for milk and meat. Thus, as the author states at the outset, this "may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses." That's the idea that Olsen is advancing after having examined the data.