#19 - One theory to explain the sudden extinction of all

[jonwg5121]

Can you please explain how to approach #19? I chose (A) but thought (C) was a convincing answer as well.

I understood the argument to be causal.
Cause: Dinos eat angiosperm
Effect: Dinos die in unusual contorted position.

I was initially hesitant with (A) because it had the word "many" in it, so I started to eliminate the other answers until I was left with (A) and (C). To me, I thought (A) would be the effect occurring without the cause. I also thought (C) would be viable because that meant carnivorous dinos did not die in contorted positions.

Thanks.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Jon,

That's an interesting question. With regard to the correct answer choice, your analysis is accurate. As for answer choice (C), that one provides a means for the carnivores to access the angiosperms without having to eat vegetation directly. This would allow for the plants to affect both herbivores and carnivores, directly and indirectly, respectively. Since the theory is intended to explain the extinction of all dinosaurs, this choice would actually strengthen the argument.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[LSAT2018]

I felt that answers (A) and (E) both weakened the argument because they mentioned the mammals that were not extinct (no effect for the cause).

Is (A) a better choice because of the 'contorted portions' (strongest support) part? Can I get an explanation for the causal argument?

[wrjackson1]

Hi, someone might need to check this, but here was my thinking.

Like you said, "strongest support" definitely caught my attention. The assumption is that dinosaurs were like this because they ate the plant, so if mammals are like this, too, it undermines that the dinosaurs were eating the plants. I thought E was incorrect mainly because of the strength of wording. The argument is talking about the extinction of dinosaurs as a direct result of angiosperms. It states that mammals "sometimes" die of drug overdose. If large mammals were dying left and right from drug overdose, this undermines the fact that dinosaurs died from it. However, only a few mammals dying isn't really enough support.

[James Finch]

Hi WRJackson,

Answer choice (E) would actually strengthen the argument, by giving evidence that even mammals-with their aversion to the bitter taste of angiosperms and their liver able to detoxify poisons that slip through despite the bitter taste--are killed by these poisons, and dinosaurs were even more susceptible. Instead, answer choice (A) hurts the argument by directly attacking the premise that "most strongly supports" the theory, thus making it less likely that angiosperms were the cause of the dinosaurs' sudden extinction.

Hope this helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

D tripped me up as I thought it meant alternative cause.

How do I avoid this error? It seemed that since the theory was that "drug overdoses" was the cause, then saying that not all these plants have this alkali element would weaken that cause? Or would we be asusming that a poisonous plant without alkali would NOT be deadly? And that would be wrong?

Another confusing point is that other poisonous plants didn't have alkaloids, and they were POISONOUS, then these poisonous plants without the alkali may be an alt cause to the sudden extinction (not the alkali plants), but this is less relevant because conclusion is about a general "drug overdose"?

Thank you again

[Dana D]

Hey dancing,

I would work on keeping track of references in passages so you can follow the author's argument more closely. So here, the author says Angiosperms are the cause of dinosaur extinction. Angiosperms make amino-acid-based alkaloids. If another type of poisonous plant doesn't produce amino-acid-based alkaloids, then that has no bearing on the author's argument - this plant is simply not one of the Angiosperm family. That's like saying every other plant is harmless except these Angiosperm plants - that's fine. The author's point is that the Angiosperms are harmful, because they make these alkaloids that dinsoaurs couldn't detect.

Hope that helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi WRJackson,

Answer choice (E) would actually strengthen the argument, by giving evidence that even mammals-with their aversion to the bitter taste of angiosperms and their liver able to detoxify poisons that slip through despite the bitter taste--are killed by these poisons, and dinosaurs were even more susceptible. Instead, answer choice (A) hurts the argument by directly attacking the premise that "most strongly supports" the theory, thus making it less likely that angiosperms were the cause of the dinosaurs' sudden extinction.

Hope this helps!

So this is a rare example where the correct answer actually attacks a premise?

Thank you

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Dancingbambarina!

I would describe answer choice (A) as attacking the extent to which a premise is useful as support for the given conclusion, which doesn't seem especially rare on the LSAT. If answer choice (A) were true, it's suggesting that the contorted positions in which many dinosaur fossils are found is no longer a good reason in favor of the drug overdose theory of dinosaur extinction.