June 2019 Questions

[lanereuden]

we have to make too many leaps to get to the idea that climbing matters for the purposes of living or hunting. We are assuming that climbing is necessary to hunting/survival...when no such suggestion is made.

choice A explicitly makes this leap for us. That is, it speaks directly to one of the two concerns mentioned (hunting). And it sensibly explains the paradox-- (actually, it seems to me like this is akin to the nature v. nurture debate)--anyhow, it explains it by suggesting they genetically inherit the spots from the large cat species and have developed a hunting strategy that conforms more to open plains than to forested, secluded areas where stealth may matter.

Using your same reasoning, I could argue that A makes just as big a leap. How do we know that having spots is conducive to increased stealth? It could very well be a coincidence that lions that live on plains have plain fur. I also don't see how the claim can be made that the argument suggests that cheetahs inherited the spots from large cat species.

Okay, so for this one, you cannot say that it makes just as big a leap. First, dappled forests means forest with spots or rounded patches. So if a cheetah (or any animal) has spots, it is implied that it has those spots to blend in a covert manner with the environment, especially in light of the contrast to open plains, where, e.g. lions have plain coats. In fact, it is not only implied, but it is stated that: coat patterns of large cat species (including lion and cheetah) correspond to the habitats in which those species hunt and live. That is to say, if they live in open area, they have open/plain coat. If they live in an dappled area, then they have dappled coats. It is not so much about spots being conducive to increased stealth as it is spots being a reflection of the environment in which they live. Indeed it could be coincidence, if not for the first line that states that their coats correspond to their milieus.
Perhaps I was not precise when I said the cheetahs inherited spots from large cat species per se. That is, cheetahs break from what is expected from the other large cat species that inhabit that area : cheetahs have spots, which are not reflective of the environment in which they live (i.e. other large cat species would be expected to have plain fur). What accounts for this discrepancy?

Well again, it is not that spots are conducive to stealth always and everywhere. Rather spots are conducive to stealth while in the forest; whereas plain coats are conducive to stealth while in the open plains.
As such, if the cheetah has a spotted coat, which is not as conducive to stealthiness as a plain coat, perhaps there is a reason for this....indeed, there is: if the cheetah's strategy rests on something other than stealth--to wit, speed. Then the issue of stealth is moot, so to speak.

[lanereuden]

Okay...so now...thinking this through...if the businesses depend on regional beauty, then it is clear that businesses would close as a result of that coal mining that de-beautifies the area. (okay, but we are not done. That is to say: businesses closing means what?)Is the conclusion coal mining de-beautifies the area? No. That is a statement that supports the argument's overall conclusion: job will decrease due to coal mining. Make sense?

Again, this doesn't address my question. You're right to say that a region that depends on beauty would close as a result of de-beautification, but that even further strays away from answer choice A. In fact, that would make me more apt to believe that "heavy coal mining forces them to close" would support "local businesses depend on beauty," not the other way around as answer choice A suggests.

let's work backwards:
here's the conclusion: if coal mining permitted, then jobs decrease....
Why would jobs decrease?
Here's the 'statement':
Because businesses would close as a result of heavy industrial activity
Why would businesses close?
Here's the 'direct evidence'
Businesses depend on region's beauty (which is de-beautified by industrial pollution).

Perhaps it helps to think of the following fact as well:
Answer choice B in this case correctly describes the role played the statement: heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them [local businesses] to close.

[lanereuden]

Okay, now presumably, lycopene exists in at least some foods (vegetables and fruits). (Crime occurs among some people of a certain background) Regardless of that fact,
we know that fruits with high lypocene levels (poor people with high crime rates) also possess several other nutrients that can likely reduce the risk of stroke (many of these same poor people with high crime rates are also frequent victims of crime themselves)...Okay..so can we say that Lypocene reduces strokes? (or that poverty causes crime?)

Or is it now possible to say that those other ingredients reduce the risk of strokes? (or that being a victim of a crime is likely to increase the risk of someone committing a crime?)

Hopefully this helps.

Having trouble deducing the relevance of that minority/crime analogy, but regardless, that still doesn't address the issue I posed in my question. I see the error I made that you pointed out, I didn't read answer choice A well enough as I was writing my post. Regardless, I don't think my misreading negatively affected the relevance of my question. The handful of fruits and vegetables in question could have all the lycopene in the world, that doesn't mean that the subjects in the study consumed them. D addresses this, A does not. Like I said earlier, what in the stimulus should convince me that the subjects got their lycopene dosage from fruit rather than a supplement?

Perhaps there's some confusion..the point is not about the dosage. The point/conclusion is about lycopene reducing the risk of stroke. If there are other nutrients in the fruits (or whatever foods that possess high levels of lycopene) that also are known to reduce the risk of stroke, then it may not be true that lycopene is the cause.

In other words: There may be an alternative cause: there may be other nutrients that are the causing a reduced stroke risk.

Also, let's eliminate b,c,d,e to further make this clear.
B is wrong because if other countries have many case scenarios in which lycopene rich foods are corresponding to generally lower rates of stroke...then, this is consistent with and would strengthen (not weaken the argument)...
C is wrong because it makes an irrelevant comparison to young adults; having lower lycopene levels than young adults does nothing to damage the argument; it is neutral; it does not disprove any results.
D is wrong because it mentions an irrelevant relationship: we are concerned with lycopene levels reducing stroke levels. Moreover, taking this at face value (i.e. not accidentally mixing it in with the idea presented to us with answer choice a), we see a consistency with what we would expect. we know Lypocene is found in certain fruits and vegetables and so it is not surprising that those who eat fruits and veggies (perhaps including those particular fruits and veggies we know of) also have high levels of lypocene.
E is irrelevant statement of fact because as expected, experiments have variation in results, but this not necessarily grounds for concern. Unless it was stated ahead of time that we should be expecting a narrow range, there is no reason to think that a wide variation will pose a problem (in fact, it may be expected).

[lsat12345]

Answer choice B in this case correctly describes the role played the statement: heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them [local businesses] to close.

Working backwards, I'm more able to see the reasoning there. That now makes sense to me. Thank you! I chose B originally, but the correct answer in this one is A by the way.

[lsat12345]

In other words: There may be an alternative cause: there may be other nutrients that are the causing a reduced stroke risk.

Definitely see what you're getting at here, I get that alternate causes always weakens the argument. But I think you're misunderstanding me. My issue here is that fruit having other nutrients that reduce stroke risk would ABSOLUTELY weaken the argument, but ONLY if we assume that the subjects actually ate the fruits. If they didn't, what relevance would the fact that fruits have other compounds have? I feel like in order to be a good answer, this needs to have the additional premise that the participants ate the fruits.

[lanereuden]

Answer choice B in this case correctly describes the role played the statement: heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them [local businesses] to close.

Working backwards, I'm more able to see the reasoning there. That now makes sense to me. Thank you! I chose B originally, but the correct answer in this one is A by the way.

Yeah strangely enough I've found working backwards helps for this and many things in life lol.
Glad this was helpful.

[lanereuden]

In other words: There may be an alternative cause: there may be other nutrients that are the causing a reduced stroke risk.

Definitely see what you're getting at here, I get that alternate causes always weakens the argument. But I think you're misunderstanding me. My issue here is that fruit having other nutrients that reduce stroke risk would ABSOLUTELY weaken the argument, but ONLY if we assume that the subjects actually ate the fruits. If they didn't, what relevance would the fact that fruits have other compounds have? I feel like in order to be a good answer, this needs to have the additional premise that the participants ate the fruits.

I see what you are saying certainly....and I also noticed another issue: it is found in some fruits and answer choice a talks about most fruits....it could certainly be the case...let's say there are a total of 6 fruits in the world....answer choice A is talking about 'most'--so, let's say for the sake of example, it is referring to 4 fruits out of the 6.
Now, the first sentence of the question stem says: found in some fruits and veggies--now, let's say the remaining 2 fruits chosen are the ones about which it was referencing...

What I am saying in this example is that there is no overlap necessarily...perhaps this is what you are getting at....


Yes, perhaps we would have to make that grand assumption as you say...A is certainly not a great choice, but in comparison, it is the one that 'most weakens'...again, refer back to the explanations as to why b,c,d,e got eliminated: they either strengthen, neutral, and/or irrelevant.

[lanereuden]

Answer choice B in this case correctly describes the role played the statement: heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them [local businesses] to close.

Working backwards, I'm more able to see the reasoning there. That now makes sense to me. Thank you! I chose B originally, but the correct answer in this one is A by the way.

Yes, the answer to 20 is A, not B. What I meant is that answer choice B would be correct if the question stem had instead asked: what is the role of the idea that heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them [local businesses] to close?

On another note, lsat12345, hopefully your question about spots on a cheetah is also cleared up .