PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 16
Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates—nasal cavity bone structures in(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(22 more words not shown)
- AIt is presented(9 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(9 more words not shown)
- CIt is presented(10 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(3 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Missing those nasal structures could suggest that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. But could a warm-blooded dinosaur have conserved water another way? The absence is evidence to consider, not necessarily a conclusive test.
Then the researcher offers the fossil locations. Were Australia and Alaska that cold when the dinosaurs lived there? Present-day temperatures don't automatically tell us what the climate was millions of years ago. Even if only warm-blooded animals could survive freezing conditions, we'd still want to know that these dinosaurs actually faced those conditions.
But this question asks for a claim's role, so we need to understand the reasoning even if we doubt it. The researcher wants to show that the paleobiologists are mistaken to call all dinosaurs cold-blooded. The fossils place some dinosaurs in supposedly freezing locations, and the final sentence says only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures. Together, those claims are meant to show that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
What we’re looking for
The survival rule is therefore support for the researcher's conclusion. It supplies the connection between surviving those conditions and being warm-blooded. Its place at the end doesn't turn it into the main point.
Working the answers
- A
This claim is offered in favor of the researcher's position. If surviving freezing temperatures requires being warm-blooded, dinosaurs that survived those conditions would help refute the claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. That supports the conclusion rather than providing a counterexample to it.
- BCorrect
The claim is a premise: a statement used to support the conclusion that the paleobiologists are mistaken. Without the survival rule, the fossil locations wouldn't provide the intended reason to classify those dinosaurs as warm-blooded. Here, calling the statement a premise and calling it support describe the same job.
- C
The researcher doesn't deny that dinosaurs lack turbinates. The dispute concerns what that absence establishes about their body temperature. Evidence that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded could challenge the paleobiologists' inference while leaving the stated absence of those bone structures intact.
- D
The main conclusion is that the paleobiologists must be mistaken. The final claim about survival explains why the researcher thinks they are mistaken. Sentence order doesn't change that relationship: the reason happens to follow the conclusion.
- E
The location evidence doesn't establish the general rule about which animals can survive freezing temperatures. Those are two separate claims the researcher uses together. The survival rule is not first supported by the location claim and then used to support something else.
To see the difference, imagine adding, “Therefore, we should stop funding these paleobiologists.” The claim that they are mistaken would then support a further conclusion, while still being supported by the dinosaur evidence. That would give it an intermediate role. The actual passage makes no further move like that, and it gives no separate argument for the survival rule.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.