PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 23
It has been argued that the immense size(61 more words not shown)
The claim that T. rex(19 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(8 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(16 more words not shown)
- DIt is offered(14 more words not shown)
- EIt is offered(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A slow hunter might still catch something even slower.
My first thought is weak or old prey. Being unable to catch a healthy, fast animal wouldn't mean T. rex could never hunt anything. The author offers a different possibility: if its prey were even larger, that prey would probably be slower. Under that possibility, T. rex's size wouldn't prevent it from catching dinner.
Notice the limit. We haven't been told that the prey actually was larger, and we haven't proved T. rex was a hunter. We've challenged the move from 'large and slow' to 'could only have scavenged.' The evidence might leave hunting open.
What we’re looking for
The role question asks about that scavenger-only claim. It is the position being challenged. More precisely, the author argues that the evidence offered for it isn't enough to establish it.
Working the answers
- A
A claim can be poorly supported and still turn out to be true. T. rex could have been only a scavenger even if this particular size-based argument fails to establish that. The author's conclusion that the inference is hasty therefore isn't logically incompatible with the hypothesis. A makes the criticism stronger than it is.
- B
Showing that the evidence is insufficient doesn't establish that the hypothesis is probably false. The author opens a possibility for hunting; there is no assessment showing hunting was more likely than scavenging alone. B turns a challenge to the proof into a probability judgment about the hypothesis itself.
- CCorrect
The author questions whether immense size and the resulting slowness are enough to establish the scavenger-only claim. If the prey were larger and slower, T. rex could still catch it. That possibility challenges the sufficiency of the evidence without proving the opposite claim that T. rex hunted.
- D
The scavenger-only claim isn't evidence for another hypothesis. It is the hypothesis that someone has drawn from the evidence about size and speed, and it is what the author challenges. D assigns it the wrong role and also overstates the author as concluding a hypothesis false.
- E
The author doesn't rely on the scavenger-only claim as a necessary piece of supporting evidence. It is the target of the criticism. The conditional point about potentially larger, slower prey supports the author's conclusion that the inference to scavenging alone is too hasty.
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.