#23 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=13789)

The correct answer choice is (A)

The scope of Temple’s research was outlined in the first paragraph, and additional mention of his experiments with birds was made in the third paragraph. Either paragraph would serve as a useful reference point in validating the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Recall that Temple’s investigation of Calvaria major was peripheral to his research on endangered birds (lines 6-8). We can safely conclude that his research on birds was largely concerned with species facing the threat of extinction.

Answer choice (B): There is no reason to believe that Temple’s estimates of the crush-resistant strength of Calvaria major pits was highly accurate. This answer choice contains an exaggeration and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Temple assumed that some modern birds’ digestive tracts exert similar abrasive pressure as those of the dodo bird, but no “experimental evidence” was furnished to support his assumption. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Given the overt skepticism exhibited in the third and fourth paragraphs, the author is unlikely to describe Temple’s research on birds as “comprehensive in scope and conducted with methodological precision.” Temple’s argument is said to have only a “semblance of rigor” (lines 33-34). This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is quite attractive, because in his quest to explain why apparently fertile Calvaria major pits were no longer able to germinate, Temple studied birds whose digestive tracts resembled those of the dodo. However, the bulk of Temple’s research on birds did not seek to validate the dodo theory: his investigation of Calvaria major was peripheral (“a sidelight”) to his research on endangered birds (lines 6-8). Furthermore, we cannot prove that it was specifically the fertile Calvaria major pits that gave Temple the idea to study dodo-like birds. The causal relationship between the two is merely speculative and cannot be proven with the information provided.

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi Powerscore,

I would kindly like further explanation on C. How is Temple's studies of other birds (being an expert himself) not considered experimental evidence? What am I missing here? The estimated force generated by the dodo was because he studied other birds.

If he used that to draw his conclusion about the dodo, it's not unreasonable to support C.

[Robert Carroll]

PresidentLSAT,

The entire discussion of Temple's research on the birds of Mauritius is in lines 6-7. There is no indication in those lines of the nature of his research except that it was on endangered birds. Now, that alone is already enough to prove that answer choice (A) is correct, but the very paucity of the evidence also shows that we have no basis for answer choice (C). I think you're mistaking his research on Calvaria major, in which he used some evidence drawn from observations of birds, with his research on endangered birds of Mauritius. Only the latter is relevant to this question.

Robert Carroll

[SGD2021]

Hello,

I have seen in the past on RC questions, we eliminate answers for being too broad. In this case, answer choice A says "was largely concerned with SPECIES facing the threat of extinction." Isn't the word "species" way too broad to be supported (since the passage is just about birds)? How can we know when to eliminate an RC answer choice for being too broad vs when it's ok for it to be too broad? (Maybe it's ok for it to be too broad when there is no better answer?)

[Adam Tyson]

The text supports that Temple was studying some species of birds that were facing extinction, SGD2021. It's not too broad to describe it by saying that he was studying species facing extinction, because that doesn't mean he must have been studying EVERY species facing extinction. It just means that he was studying SOME in that position.