PrepTest 151, Section 3, Question 12
A recently discovered fossil, which is believed by(57 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn in the(11 more words not shown)
- AThe only paleontologists(22 more words not shown)
- BIf the fossil(12 more words not shown)
- CThere are other(9 more words not shown)
- DIf the entire(12 more words not shown)
- EThe fossil was(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Scattered bones could still belong to one animal.
Imagine an animal whose remains were moved apart after it died or after another animal ate it. Finding bones in several parts of a site wouldn't by itself prove that they came from several creatures. The argument calls the assembled fossil a composite, but we still need to know what that tells us about how many animals contributed the bones.
What we’re looking for
The stated rule is clear: this fossil can support the bird-from-dinosaur claim only if the entire fossil comes from one animal. The author wants to rule it out as evidence. To make that conclusion follow, connect being a composite with failing the single-animal requirement.
Working the answers
- A
The paleontologists' prior beliefs don't settle which animals the bones came from. People already convinced of bird evolution could correctly identify a single animal, or they could be mistaken. We need a fact linking this fossil's composition to multiple animals, not information about who believes what.
- BCorrect
The fossil is a composite, and B says a composite includes pieces of more than one animal. It therefore fails the requirement that the entire fossil come from a single animal. Under the stated rule, it cannot serve as the proposed evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
That is a conclusion about this fossil's use as evidence. It doesn't show that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, nor does it establish that the bones tell us nothing useful about anything else.
- C
Other fossils might provide excellent evidence for the evolutionary claim. The conclusion here is that this particular fossil doesn't provide it. Evidence elsewhere neither establishes nor removes the problem with this specimen's composition.
- D
This tells us what follows if the fossil is from a single animal. It doesn't tell us whether it is. We also aren't given a claim that it is poorly preserved that could help rule out that possibility. D leaves the connection from composite to multiple animals unfilled.
- E
A dishonest or profit-focused seller could sell bones from one animal or from several. The seller's motives might make us suspicious, but they don't prove the fossil fails the single-animal requirement. We need the connection B supplies, not just a reason to distrust someone involved.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.