PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 8
Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws of modern(68 more words not shown)
In responding to the ornithologist's(7 more words not shown)
- Aquestions the qualifications(7 more words not shown)
- Bdenies the truth(11 more words not shown)
- Cuses a parallel(9 more words not shown)
- Dshows that the(12 more words not shown)
- Eprovides additional evidence(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being able to perch in a tree doesn't mean that's where you live.
The curved claws could help Archeopteryx grip a branch. I would still ask what else those claws did. Perhaps they were useful for grabbing prey. A shape can serve more than one purpose, so noticing a possible use doesn't tell us how the creature spent most of its time.
The paleontologist gives a more focused response. Let's accept the ability to perch and ask whether it establishes a tree-dwelling life. Chickens can perch in trees, yet they primarily live on the ground. So even actual time spent perching doesn't necessarily make a bird tree-dwelling.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to describe that response. The chicken example supplies a similar case in which the proposed evidence is present but the proposed conclusion doesn't hold. The paleontologist needn't deny the claw shape or prove Archeopteryx lived on the ground. The example shows why the inference to a tree-dwelling life needs more support.
Working the answers
- A
Nothing questions the ornithologist's education or ability to assess birds. The response examines the reasoning using chickens. Challenging an expert's inference isn't automatically challenging the expert's qualifications.
- B
The paleontologist doesn't deny that the claws were curved or that they enabled perching. The reply can accept those claims and still question what follows from them. Its point is that a creature can have the stated ability without living primarily in trees.
- CCorrect
Chickens provide the parallel case. They have the relevant feature—spending time perched in trees—but lack the proposed conclusion, a primarily tree-dwelling life. That makes the gap easier to see: perching and residing are different claims.
The comparison doesn't require chickens and Archeopteryx to be alike in every respect. It needs the particular shared feature and the contrasting outcome. By showing that perching coexists with ground-dwelling in this case, the paleontologist illustrates why the ornithologist's evidence doesn't settle the creature's habitat.
- D
Nothing makes curved claws or the ability to perch incompatible with living in trees. The paleontologist says those facts don't adequately establish that habitat, not that they contradict it. Archeopteryx could still have been tree-dwelling; the point is that the argument hasn't shown enough to decide.
- E
The example works against the proposed inference. It shows that perching needn't indicate a tree-dwelling life. That is additional information, but it doesn't support the ornithologist's argument merely because it concerns a bird that can use trees.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.