Subscription pricing
Paleontologist: Most biologists accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs known as maniraptors. ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████
Objective: Flaw / Descriptive Weakening Questions
In Flaw / Descriptive Weakening questions, we approach the stimulus with a critical eye, looking for unreasonable assumptions and faulty reasoning methods. With practice, it’s often within reach to proactively identify the argument’s flaw well enough to move into the answer choices looking for that specific flaw.
This process is aided significantly by the fact that the LSAT writers routinely pull from a list of common flaws – learning to recognize these flaws when they appear in stimuli and answer choices will save you an enormous amount of time and mental energy.
Argument Summary: Arguments About Arguments
The stem asks us to criticize the paleontologist’s argument, but the paleontologist’s argument itself criticizes an argument – the one “some biologists” use to justify their position. We’ll call these people the Hipsters.
Broadly speaking, the author presents some reasoning, says it’s misguided, and then gives a reason why it’s misguided. When trying to understand a complex argument, it’s often a good idea to start with the conclusion:
Paleontologist’s Conclusion: This reasoning is misguided.
But understanding this conclusion demands understanding “this reasoning.” Well, “this reasoning” is the Hipsters’ reasoning. So let’s dive deeper and work out the Hipsters’ argument, starting with its conclusion:
Hipsters’ Conclusion: I do not accept this theory.
Oh lord, understanding this conclusion demands understanding “this theory.” Fine, what’s the theory?
Most Biologists' Theory: Birds evolved from maniraptors.
Ok we’ve finally hit bedrock. Let’s start building back up:
Hipsters’ Conclusion: I do not accept the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors.
Now we can round out our understanding of “this reasoning” by finding the support these Hipsters use to justify their position:
Hipsters’ Support: The oldest known bird fossils predate the oldest known maniraptor fossils by several million years.
So summarized, the Hipsters’ reasoning is: The bird fossils we have are way older than the maniraptor fossils we have, so I’m not convinced birds came from maniraptors.
Woo we’re done! Just kidding we’ve gotta round out the Paleontologist’s conclusion now. Expanded out all the way, it this:
Paleontologist’s Conclusion: It is misguided to say you aren’t convinced birds came from maniraptors just because the bird fossils we have are way older than the maniraptor fossils we have.
You don’t need to hold this long form version of all these combined claims in your head forever. In fact, it’s preferable to switch back to the much more abstract versions while you’re puzzling things out. But you do need this long version to appreciate how the Paleontologist’s support is relevant, which is our next step.
Paleontologist’s Support: I know we haven’t discovered the old maniraptor fossils, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
So here’s the overall summary:
Paleontologist: I know you damned Hipsters point out that the bird fossils we have are way older than the maniraptor fossils we have, and therefore refuse to accept the theory that birds came from maniraptors. But just because we haven’t found those fossils yet doesn’t mean they don’t exist, so your whole line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Criticizing this argument means finding a reason why the Hipsters’ Conclusion can still be justified despite the Paleontologist's Support – we’re defending the Hipsters’ decision not to accept the theory without actual fossil evidence.
25.
The paleontologist's argument is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████
b
It fails to ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████████
c
It takes for ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████████
d
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████████████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████
e
It fails to ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████████