- Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:20 pm
#30413
Nice work, jcough - your reasons for eliminating A, C and D are solid, on the money.
Let's focus on B and E, your two contenders, and see not so much how they are different, but how they relate to one another.
When we are looking for the Main Point, we are looking for something a little selfish. We want a claim that was in the argument and which got all the support and gave none. It's greedy that way. So, in analyzing your answers, and especially when you have only two contenders, ask yourself whether those answers supported any other claim in the argument. It would be particularly interesting if one of your contenders supported the other, as will happen if one of the answers is a "subordinate" conclusion, based in part on some premises but ultimately supporting the main conclusion.
So, put these two statements together and ask yourself whether one supports the other. Does "it's a quirk" support "brains need glucose", or does "brains need glucose" support "it's a quirk"? I would argue that it's the latter - brains need glucose to survive supports the idea that having a bunch of different hormones all produce glucose is a quirk of brain of the brain (it's a survival tactic). I don't think "it's a quirk of the brain that hormones do that" supports the claim that, therefore, brains need glucose.
Since "it's a quirk" is getting all the support and giving none, that's your winner.
See if that helps, and let us know if you need further explanation. We'll be here!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam