PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 5
Atrens: An early entomologist observed ants carrying particles(35 more words not shown)
Atrens's conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AAnt societies do(11 more words not shown)
- BThere is only(17 more words not shown)
- CAnt dumping sites(10 more words not shown)
- DThe ants to(13 more words not shown)
- EThe entomologist cited(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Carrying particles to another colony doesn't yet tell us what the ants are doing. Maybe they're bringing food. Maybe they're getting rid of something they don't want. I'd want more than the trip itself before choosing a story.
Then we learn the ants were emptying their colony's dumping site. That sounds like a reason to question the food story. But does it rule the story out?
What if they're doing both?
When I clean out my closet and take unwanted clothes to charity, I'm getting rid of things and giving other people something they can use. Those descriptions aren't in conflict. Similarly, the ants could be clearing out their dumping site and bringing food to their neighbors, if the dumped particles are still edible.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. We need a reason those two descriptions can't both be true here. One way to do that would be to establish that the particles from the dump aren't usable as food. Then knowing where the particles came from really would disprove the early entomologist's interpretation.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't trying to prove that ants behave just like humans. The closet example helps us see why getting rid of something needn't rule out giving something useful. Saying ant and human societies differ in some ways doesn't tell us whether these particular particles could be food. We still need that connection.
- B
Weak evidence for gift-giving isn't proof that no food was being brought. The entomologist's explanation could turn out to be right even if the evidence supporting it was poor. And bringing food needn't involve the human idea of a gift. We need to establish that this interpretation is wrong, not merely that we should be cautious about accepting it.
- CCorrect
Now the source of the particles settles whether they could be food. The ants are removing particles from their dumping site, and C says that site contains no particles usable as food. So the material they're carrying cannot be food for their neighbors.
That closes the opening in our closet example. The clothes could still be useful, which allowed both descriptions to fit. Under C, the ants' discarded material can't serve as food, so emptying this dump cannot also be delivering food.
- D
Maybe the neighboring ants simply didn't want what they were brought. Refusing to carry the particles inside doesn't establish that the particles weren't food. Someone can bring you a meal you don't accept. We need to rule out food being brought, not show that the recipients failed to take it into their colony.
- E
Changing his mind doesn't prove he was wrong the first time. The entomologist might have retracted his interpretation for the same inadequate reason we're questioning: he assumed that material from a dumping site couldn't be food. We need a fact that settles the issue, not a report that he now endorses the conclusion.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.