LR Question 9 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some paleontologists have suggested that Apatosaurus a…
QUESTION TYPE: Identify The Conclusion
CONCLUSION: It’s unlikely that Apatosaurus could gallop.
REASONING: We calculated that galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’ legs.
ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable argument. It shows that since galloping would have disastrous consequences, Apatosaurus probably couldn’t gallop.
Some words help you find conclusions. Notice that the stimulus says ‘however’. That usually shows that the author disagrees with a previous statement. What follows ‘however’ tends to be the conclusion.
___________
- This is evidence that supports the conclusion that Apatosaurus couldn’t gallop.
- This tells us how we know that galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’ legs.
- CORRECT. See the second sentence. The author said ‘however’, which almost always indicates a conclusion.
- The author didn’t actually say this. It’s an implicit premise that allows them to draw their conclusion. The conclusion is that Apatosaurus is unlikely to have been able to gallop.
- This is a necessary assumption, not the conclusion. If Apatosaurus’ bones were much stronger than modern bones, then maybe Apatosaurus could have galloped without breaking its legs.
More Resources for Identify the Conclusion Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Identify the Conclusion questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers identify the conclusion questions.
Just to be clear…
The answer is about the actual claim made about the legs breaking (hence why C is correct) and not the actual legs breaking?
I picked A initially…
Yes, that’s correct. Generally if someone makes a prediction or judgement that’s the conclusion. The argument says “This, however, is unlikely”. So that line is the conclusion, and you have to check what “this” refers to. In the first sentence, the opposing claim is that some paleontologists think the Apatosaurus could gallop. It is this that the author thinks is unlikely.
The part about broken legs is evidence for why the paleontologist thinks the claim is unlikely. Hope that helps!