#17 - Traditional hatcheries raise fish in featureless

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Visitor! Thanks so much for your great question

The main issue with your analysis is the cause that you identify, which is why you're getting tripped up by the idea of two causes and the word "and." Let's break down the stimulus to isolate the causal reasoning here: the author concludes that fish raised in experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive. Why? Because those from the experimental hatcheries are "bolder." The author defines "bolder" as exploring new environments and trying new food. The cause that the author relates to the effect of greater likelihood of survival is whether the fish are bolder.

However, there's a gap in the author's reasoning between being bold and being more likely to survive, so I would anticipate the correct answer choice to be a Supporter Assumption that bridges this gap.

Answer choice (C) helps us bridge that gap and is therefore the incorrect answer. If we negate answer choice (C), we get the following: No fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because of being too timid in foraging for food. This negation weakens the author's conclusion that a fish being bolder makes them more likely to survive. If fish in traditional hatcheries aren't dying because of their timidity in foraging for food (the opposite of being bold), then this casts doubt on the idea that the fish from experimental hatcheries survive because they are bolder since fish that aren't bold are also surviving despite their timidity.

Returning to your analysis: the cause that the author identifies is that the fish from the experimental hatcheries are bolder. In your analysis, you identify two causes that contribute to their greater survival: exploring new environments and trying new foods. However, the author ties boldness to likelihood of survival, which is the cause in the causal relationship. The role that exploring new environments and trying new foods plays in the argument is that it is how the author defines boldness.

I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any other questions!

[ange.li6778]

Hi Powerscore, after spending 5 minutes on this one question, I ended up eliminating C because I didn't think it accurately described what the stimulus claims: "foraging for food" sounded different from "exploring new environments and trying new types of food." If anything, it seemed like C was purposefully conflating those two distinct elements. I guess I missed that the main focus of the argument is the bold behavior. But then for other questions, a very attractive answer choice will end up being wrong because it got a small detail wrong...how do I account for this and adjust my approach as needed for different questions?

[arvinm123]

I am writing my LSAT in a few days so I am hoping I can get a timely response

When taking this PT, I initially answered this correctly. But upon blind review, I chose D. What I am having trouble understanding with C) is: how come the part thats supposed to be negated is turning "some" to "none"? I studied the Assumption Negation technique in the LR Bible and it said when negating statements (that are not conditional), take out a "not" when one is present or add one when one is absent - this was the gist of it.

So when negating answer C) during blind review, I changed the sentence from "Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are too timid in their foraging for food." into "Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries do not die because they are too timid in their foraging for food."

This version of the negation would, of course, not be detrimental to the argument. Can someone please explain why my negation process was incorrect and how I am supposed to know when to negate a quantitative term like "some" rather than, for example, add in a "do not" in an answer choice like this? A thorough guide would be much appreciated.

Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ange and arvinm

I'll start with you, ange. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the answer choice describing the stimulus. Here we aren't looking for an answer choice that describes the stimulus. We are looking for an answer choice that gives us something required for the conclusion to follow. So we don't care that answer choice (C) does not describe the passage. We want something that will add to the information in the passage.

Let's try to analyze the argument in the passage. Generally speaking, the best defense to overlooking critical parts of a passage is to prephrase your answer choice. I typically start by identifying the conclusion and then determine the premises, or the reasons that the author gives for their conclusion.

Conclusion: Fish raised in experimental hatcheries (with visually stimulating environments) are more likely to survive after their release into the wild than fish raised in traditional hatcheries (with featureless environments).

Premise: Fish from experimental hatcheries are bolder in exploring and trying new foods than those from traditional hatcheries.

For an assumption question, we are looking for something to link the idea of boldness in exploring and feeding to survival. Answer choice (C) does that for us. It says that some of the traditional hatchery fish die because they are timid (or not bold).

And arvinm, for negating answer choices, you want to negate the entire idea. Here, that would mean negating the some to a none. Either there are some fish that die because of timidity or there are no fish that die of timidity. If you find that you struggle to correctly negate answer choices, you can always use the phrase "it is not the case that..." before the answer choice as an easy way to negate. It is not the case that some fish die because of timidity is the same as saying no fish die of timidity. There are often more direct ways of negating an answer choice, but "it is not the case that" is a good way to have an accurate negation of any answer choice. Best of luck to you on your exam!

Hope that helps!

[LSAT-180]

I legitimately cannot wrap my head around this question. My analysis follows, please let me know where I am going wrong. Thank you!

*Analysis:*
The allegedly correct answer says that, “Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die **because** they are too timid in their foregoing for food” and the argument works perfectly fine WITHOUT assuming this.

The stimulus says that bolder fish “explore[] new environments and try[] new types of food” and “therefore, are more likely to survive . . . .” This is a causal relationship.

When 2 causes (exploring + trying new food) are given for 1 effect (longer life) it is impossible to say which of the 2 causes is CAUSING the effect. Maybe both are? Maybe only one is? But to say that 1 cause (trying new food) is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the argument is wrong. It is entirely possible that the ONLY reason the bolder fish “are more likely to survive” is because they “explore[] new environments” that, for example, might lead them to find shelter from predators.

To say, as the alleged answer suggests, that at least SOME fish die **because** of their timidity in seeking out new food is completely unsupported by the facts of the stimulus. You can negate this and say ”NO fish raised in traditional hatcheries die **because** they are too timid in their foregoing for food” and the argument works perfectly fine. The relative decreased lifespan could be purely and exclusively **because** of the relative decrease in “exploring new environments” thus removing any need for the alleged necessary assumption.

In essence: the word *because* in the correct answer is wrong, since another explanation (e.g.: exploring predator-free places) can fully account for the increased lifespan of the bolder fish.

I have the exact same doubt. Can someone please explains this?

[LSAT-180]

After re-reading the stimulus a couple of times, coupled with Beatrice’s explanation I have more clarity on why the answer is right, but I still don’t think that it’s an absolute necessary assumption. Is the condition of being bold while trying new foods a must for being bold overall?

[atierney]

In looking at this questions and questions like it, the analysis you want to perform is to A) identify the gap in the argument, B) find an answer that fills that gap OR provides a defense against possible means of attacking the argument's validity overall.

Here, the "gap" is increased survival given exploring new environments and trying new food. The answer choice therefore is going to be one that shows how trying new food or exploring new environments leads to increased survival. Because C does this (tying the "trying new food" to increased survival), it is the best and correct answer.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[nhlsat1234567]

I legitimately cannot wrap my head around this question. My analysis follows, please let me know where I am going wrong. Thank you!

*Analysis:*
The allegedly correct answer says that, “Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die **because** they are too timid in their foregoing for food” and the argument works perfectly fine WITHOUT assuming this.

The stimulus says that bolder fish “explore[] new environments and try[] new types of food” and “therefore, are more likely to survive . . . .” This is a causal relationship.

When 2 causes (exploring + trying new food) are given for 1 effect (longer life) it is impossible to say which of the 2 causes is CAUSING the effect. Maybe both are? Maybe only one is? But to say that 1 cause (trying new food) is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the argument is wrong. It is entirely possible that the ONLY reason the bolder fish “are more likely to survive” is because they “explore[] new environments” that, for example, might lead them to find shelter from predators.

To say, as the alleged answer suggests, that at least SOME fish die **because** of their timidity in seeking out new food is completely unsupported by the facts of the stimulus. You can negate this and say ”NO fish raised in traditional hatcheries die **because** they are too timid in their foregoing for food” and the argument works perfectly fine. The relative decreased lifespan could be purely and exclusively **because** of the relative decrease in “exploring new environments” thus removing any need for the alleged necessary assumption.

In essence: the word *because* in the correct answer is wrong, since another explanation (e.g.: exploring predator-free places) can fully account for the increased lifespan of the bolder fish.

I have the exact same doubt. Can someone please explains this?

I also have the same doubt and did not find the answer provided clear. If someone could please explain further that would be great!

Specifically, how is answer (C) a **required** assumption? A required assumption is a statement that, if negated, makes the argument untrue. As explained above, the stimulus allows for the possibility that the reason fish from experimental hatcheries survive longer is simply the fact that they are less bold in exploring new environments, independent of their boldness/timidness in trying new foods. Maybe all the fish are able to find food fine, but fish from experimental hatcheries survive because their boldness in trying new habitats allows them to be better at evading predators, finding better water temperatures, etc. Answer (C) could be negated but the argument still be true if that is the case. Therefore, this statement is not a **required** assumption.

To me, the true required assumption is that "Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries, when released into the wild, die either because they are too timid in trying new types of food or because they are too timid in exploring new habitats"

Thanks for the help with clarification!

[Adam Tyson]

I've read this objection, but it just strikes me as an overly complicated look at what the stimulus is claiming. The argument is that being bolder gives a survival advantage, and the combination of exploring new environments and trying new kinds of food is not really treated as two separate things. Could we argue that, semantically, that IS what it means? Sure, but why make this test harder than it has to be by stretching the meaning beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances? It makes much more sense to interpret this author's position as being that those two conditions are really just one joint condition - boldness means going to new places and trying new food there. Looked at that way, then the author must assume that being timid in general must be causing some fish from traditional hatcheries to die; otherwise, being bold cannot be imparting any survival advantage.

Here's another reason to select answer C, even with those reservations: it's still the best answer. The instructions tell us to select the best one, not a perfect one. If you have these concerns about answer C, then you would have to eliminate every answer choice, because there's nothing better out there. At that point, you have to ask yourself "Did I possibly misinterpret the stimulus? Is there another way to interpret this argument, one in which one of these answers actually is necessary?" Simplifying that claim about boldness ends up working just fine, and answer C then works perfectly.

We can argue against the test until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, one answer is the credited response, and it's our job to figure out which answer will get us that credit. When that answer is imperfect, as long as it is still better than the alternatives, we need to select it despite that imperfection. Otherwise, we aren't following the instructions we were given.

[DaveWave24]

I also had trouble with the idea of two potential causes, my rationalization is pretty similar to what Adam explained. There are two ways to interpret being “bolder than those from traditional hatcheries in exploring new environments and trying new types of food”. The first way, which is how I initially read it and it looks like the other commenters here read it, is that the fish are “bolder in exploring new environments, and they are also bolder in trying new types of food.” When I read it this way I saw that there were no correct answer choices, but luckily answer C clues us in on how we were supposed to interpret that sentence. “Foraging for food” factors in both exploring environments and eating food, so in order for this answer choice to be true we would have had to interpret that second sentence of the stimulus as saying that boldness is the variable we are concerned with and the exploration and food eating are just the effects of boldness that we will see play out when the fish forage for food. Again this isn’t how I interpreted it but it’s definitely a reasonable interpretation of the stimulus, and since it’s the only way to get to a correct answer it must be how the stimulus was intended to be read. Like Adam was saying, the intention of the test writers is the only thing that matters here.