QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Hoyt claims that humans are descended from lungfish. Grover claims we are descended from coelacanths.
REASONING: Frogs are related to the fish from which we are descended.
Hoyt found a similarity in the mitochondria of lungfish and frogs.
Grover does not believe mitochondria can reliably show a link. She points instead to a hemoglobin match between tadpoles and coelacanths.
ANALYSIS: After reading this question and all of the answer choices, I realize I hadn’t understood a thing. So I read it again slowly, and immediately understood. Don’t be afraid of taking the time you need to understand a question: it will speed you up overall.
___________
- Actually, it provides some support for the idea that we are descended from lungfish.
- It also provides some evidence that we are descended from coelacanths.
- Neither scientist believes this is an either/or situation. The stimulus does not exclude a third possibility.
- CORRECT. Yes. Both scientists agree with this assumption, and use it to craft their arguments.
- I say frog, you say hemoglobin? The info about frogs, by itself, doesn’t imply that a match means anything at all. The scientists are the ones who each claim that those matches prove common ancestry.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply