LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 23

August 10, 2018

3 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 2 - Question 23

August 10, 2018

18 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 23

August 10, 2018

It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter, since it would not have been able to chase down its prey. This, however, is an overly hasty inference. T. rex’s prey, if it was even larger than T. rex, would probably have been slower than T. rex.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author concludes that the theory that Tyrannosaurus rex was exclusively a scavenger is an overly hasty inference. As support for this conclusion, the author addresses a possibility that those who believe that T. rex was a scavenger fail to consider: that the prey of T. rex could be even larger than T. rex. If this was the case, then the prey would probably have been slower than T. rex. This possibility weakens the theory that T. rex was primarily a scavenger.

Identify Argument Part

The claim in the question stem is the inference that the author concludes was made too hastily.

A
It is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument to be logically inconsistent with the conclusion advanced by the argument.

The conclusion advanced by the argument is just that the theory that T. rex was exclusively a scavenger is a hasty inference. There is no logical inconsistency here; the author is just asserting that the given evidence is not enough.

B
It is a hypothesis that the argument contends is probably false.

The author does not claim that the hypothesis in the question stem is probably false––this language is too strong. The author only claims that this hypothesis was “overly hasty,” meaning that we cannot make this conclusion from the information given.

C
It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence.

In asserting that the claim in the question stem is “overly hasty,” the author is saying that this claim doesn’t have enough support, not that it’s false. This is why (C) is correct––the author claims that the evidence is not sufficient to claim that T. rex was a scavenger.

D
It is offered as evidence in support of a hypothesis that the argument concludes to be false.

The claim in the question stem is the hypothesis that the author is discussing; it is not offered as evidence of a hypothesis.

E
It is offered as evidence that is necessary for drawing the conclusion advanced by the argument.

The statement in the question stem is the hypothesis that the author claims was an overly hasty inference; it is not offered as evidence.


24 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 3 - Question 23

March 12, 2018

18 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 3 - Question 23

March 12, 2018

24 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 23

March 5, 2018

2 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 23

March 5, 2018

The traditional view of the Roman emperor Caligula as a cruel and insane tyrant has been challenged by some modern historians. They point out that little documentation of Caligula’s alleged cruelty or outrageous behavior survives from the time of his reign and that the histories that have come down to us were written by his enemies.

Summarize Argument
The modern historians disagree with the view that Calgigula was a cruel and insane tyrant. This is based on the fact that only a little documentation of Caligula’s alleged cruelty or outrageous behavior survives. In addition, the documentation that survives was written by his enemies.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if Caligula were a cruel and insane tyrant, more documentation would have survived, and that documentation would not have only been written by his enemies. The author also assumes that the fact reports of his cruelty and outrageous behavior were written by his enemies suggests that those reports are not accurate.

A
There is less documentation of any sort from Caligula’s reign than from the reigns of most other Roman emperors of Caligula’s era.
If anything, this weakens the argument by suggesting that the little documentation concerning Caligula’s cruelty isn’t particularly significant. If there’s less documentation overall from his time, that could explain why there’s not much documentation of his cruelty.
B
People who have lived under someone regarded as a cruel tyrant are more likely to view that person unfavorably than favorably.
This doesn’t help suggest that Caligula wasn’t cruel. We don’t know whether Caligula was regarded favorably or unfavorably.
C
The specific outrageous acts attributed to Caligula in Roman documentation are very similar to acts attributed in earlier writings to other rulers alleged to be cruel tyrants.
This strengthens by suggesting that the descriptions written by Caligula’s enemies concerning Caligula’s outrageous acts may have been copied from earlier writings about other rulers. It provides evidence suggesting that those accounts about Caligula may not be reliable.
D
The little documentation that survives from Caligula’s reign indicates that the Roman people believed Caligula to be crueler than other emperors who were widely thought to be tyrants.
How Caligula’s reported cruelty ranks compared to others doesn’t affect whether Caligula was in fact as cruel as reported.
E
There is ample documentation of modern tyrants being responsible for outrageous acts worse than those attributed to Caligula.
This suggests that there have been modern tyrants who did things that were more cruel than what was attributed to Caligula. But this doesn’t suggest that Caligula wasn’t cruel. He might not have been as cruel as others, but this doesn’t mean his cruelty has been exaggerated.

141 comments

LSAT 82 - Section 1 - Question 23

November 22, 2017

1 comment

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 23

November 22, 2017

52 comments

LSAT 82 - Section 4 - Question 23

November 19, 2017

24 comments

«‹12345678910111213141516171819›»