LSAT 159 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q25

LR Question 25 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Paleontologist: Most biologists accept that birds evolved from …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The reasoning of the biologists who reject the theory is misguided.

REASONING: There could be older maniraptor fossils out there, even if we haven’t found them.

ANALYSIS: The paleontologist’s argument, at first, seems sound because he actually does point out a flaw. He notes that the absence of evidence doesn’t mean they can’t exist – which is correct.

But notice that the paleontologist never addresses whether it’s still reasonable to withhold belief in the theory until stronger evidence appears. I mean, isn’t it somewhat reasonable for the biologists to assume that if we can find bird fossils that old, we should be able to find maniraptors that old if they exist?

Even if the absence of older maniraptor fossils doesn’t disprove the theory, it might still justify doubt about it. A scientist can reasonably say “I don’t accept this theory yet because the evidence isn’t there” without making the logical error the paleontologist attributes to them. Science does rest on evidence after all.

___________

1. Too strong. The paleontologist never implies the theory is true, only that the critics’ reasoning is bad.
2. This sounds relevant but misses the point. The paleontologist’s focus isn’t about whether older fossils will ever be found. It’s about whether rejecting the theory now is justified.
3. The paleontologist never says that. They only claim that the absence of fossils doesn’t disprove the theory.
4. That’s true in general, but not the issue here. This argument is specifically about the reasoning related to fossil age.
5. CORRECT. The paleontologist calls the critics “misguided” without recognizing that skepticism based on unconvincing evidence can still be rational.