QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The Tasmanian tiger doesn’t exist.
REASONING: We have no evidence that it exists.
ANALYSIS: Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. It’s possible the tiger exists even though we have no evidence that it does.
- It doesn’t matter why the last Tasmanian tigers went extinct. It only matters that sheep farming had a big impact.
(i.e. if hunters got the last two tigers, that wouldn’t affect the argument)
- This would weaken the argument if true. It might mean there were carcasses now and again, but scavengers ate them. (Tiger carcasses means there were recently living tigers).
- The negation of this has no impact. Flipping an answer from true to false has to have an effect. One naturalist failing to look means nothing.
Negation: Every naturalist but one looked systematically for evidence of the tiger’s survival. One didn’t, because he was paralyzed and could no longer do fieldwork.
- CORRECT. If this isn’t true, the argument falls apart. It shows sheep farming didn’t have a devastating impact, because the tiger moved and may be alive elsewhere.
Negation: The tigers have moved to another environment and adapted.
- This would strengthen the argument, but it isn’t necessary. And like C, negating it has little impact. One naturalist hardly makes a difference.
Negation: One experienced naturalist also thought he saw a Tasmanian tiger. He was drunk at the time, and didn’t have his glasses.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions