LSAT 102 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws of modern…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: The ornithologist claims that Archaeopteryx lived in trees.

REASONING: Archaeopteryx could perch in trees.

ANALYSIS: The ornithologist’s argument is pretty weak. He’s only established that Archaeopteryx could perch in trees. And perching in a tree isn’t the same as living in a tree.

The correct answer says that its necessary that the birds actually did use this tree-perching capability.

___________

1. The argument could still work if birds were only indirect descendants of Archaeopteryx.
2. CORRECT. If the Archaeopteryx didn’t make use of its curved claws then there’s no way it lived in trees.
3. It doesn’t matter if there’s more than one way for a bird to live in trees. All that matters is that the Archaeopteryx was itself capable of living in trees.
4. Whether or not an earlier bird existed doesn’t affect how the Archaeopteryx lived.
5. The argument would be stronger if this were false and there was even more evidence.

Recap: The question begins with “Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws of modern”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.