PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 10
In 2005, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made headlines when(51 more words not shown)
The answer to which one(16 more words not shown)
- AHow rare is(12 more words not shown)
- BIs there any(13 more words not shown)
- CHow likely is(16 more words not shown)
- DIs it possible(17 more words not shown)
- EBefore Schweitzer's discovery,(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do similar collagen proteins actually tell us that two animals are closely related?
The discovery gives us a similarity between a T. rex and modern chickens. I can see why that might be evidence of a close relationship. But its value depends on how common this similarity is among animals that aren't close relatives. If unrelated animals routinely share it, finding it here wouldn't tell us much.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a useful question to evaluate this argument. Keep the conclusion narrow: does this discovery add evidence for the relationship? We don't need to settle the entire dinosaur-and-bird question. We need to test whether this particular protein comparison deserves the evidential weight the author gives it.
Working the answers
- A
Rarity might help explain why finding the tissue made headlines. It doesn't tell us whether the similarity between its proteins and chicken proteins indicates close relatedness. Rare evidence can be informative or uninformative about a particular claim.
- B
Other evidence against a close relationship would matter to the larger scientific question. But evidence on both sides can exist. The discovery could add support even if some other finding points against the relationship. Asking whether any contrary evidence exists doesn't tell us how informative this discovery is.
- CCorrect
Try both answers. If animals that aren't closely related are very likely to have similar collagen proteins, the match between the T. rex and chickens supplies little reason to think they are close relatives. If such a match is rare among animals that aren't closely related, finding it here provides stronger support.
The question tests the exact move from the observed similarity to the claimed relationship. That's why it is more useful than a broad request for other evidence.
- D
Whether T. rex is closer to chickens than to some other dinosaur adds another comparison. Our argument doesn't rank its relationship to every dinosaur. It asks whether the chicken protein match supports a close relationship to birds at all.
- E
An earlier prediction might turn out to be right or wrong. Knowing that researchers expected a protein match doesn't establish what the match tells us about relatedness. The same question remains: could animals that aren't close relatives have these similar proteins?
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.