LR Drill Set 7, Question 1
Astrophysicist: Professor Bollinger maintains the theory that the(76 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe argument simply(17 more words not shown)
- BThe argument is(14 more words not shown)
- CThe argument attacks(9 more words not shown)
- DThe argument fails(15 more words not shown)
- EThe argument presumes(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A comet arrived before life did. That doesn't yet prove the comet caused life.
Bollinger's evidence is compatible with the theory: comets contain organic material, and Earth experienced a collision before life emerged. But those facts could be true without establishing the proposed cause. The astrophysicist can accept them and still question Bollinger's conclusion.
Then comes the response: life's origin wasn't a single, sudden event, so Bollinger is wrong. My first reaction is to wonder whether a comet could have started a longer process. Causing something needn't mean completing it instantly. Is the response rejecting the comet's role or just a particular picture of how it worked?
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a flaw in the astrophysicist's argument. I want to inspect what this response has actually established, rather than let my own view of how life began fill in the science. The astrophysicist needs a reason to reject the theory, not merely an opposing assertion. Let's see which choice describes the problem the passage actually gives us.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The response says the origin of life wasn't the event Bollinger describes, but supplies no evidence for that denial. That is a more direct problem than our initial question about whether a comet might start a longer process. The passage attributes the sudden-event claim to Bollinger; what it doesn't provide is support for the astrophysicist's assertion against it. Describing a theory and then saying it is false doesn't establish that it is false.
- B
Accepting premises while rejecting a conclusion is not inherently inconsistent. We can accept that a comet hit Earth before life emerged and that comets contain organic material, yet remain unconvinced that this caused life. The conclusion needs support beyond mere compatibility with those facts. The flaw isn't that the astrophysicist separates the evidence from the conclusion; it's the lack of evidence for the competing denial.
- C
Nothing attacks Bollinger's honesty, character, or personal habits. The astrophysicist disputes the theory's account of life's origin. That response may be inadequately supported, but it isn't a personal attack. We should identify the reasoning actually present instead of assigning a familiar flaw label.
- D
Both sides accept the earlier comet collision. The astrophysicist even acknowledges having written about it. Failing to prove that shared starting fact isn't what makes the rejection of Bollinger's theory unsupported. The missing evidence concerns the assertion used against the theory.
- E
The passage does discuss events before life began, but that isn't automatically a reasoning error. Evidence can in principle tell us about events no person witnessed. More importantly, E doesn't identify why this particular response fails to support its denial. The problem remains even if we grant the shared claims about the ancient collision.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.