LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: The inference that the T. rex must have been a scavenger is too hasty.
REASONING: Original inference: T. rex was big. Therefore, it would be too slow to catch prey and must have been a scavenger.
Argument: If there was prey bigger than the T. rex, it would be slower and therefore catchable. So maybe the T. rex was a hunter after all.
ANALYSIS: It is important here to keep the argument and the original inference separate. The original inference is the claim that T. rex must have been a scavenger. The argument is saying this inference was too hasty.
This means that this statement is an inference that the stimulus’ author is arguing to be too hasty.
___________
- The argument never claims the inference specifically to be inconsistent with its conclusion. The argument’s conclusion is that the inference is too hasty. The inference can be too hasty while still ultimately true.
If I saw one episode of Friends and said “Ross was important so he must be in most of the episodes”, this is maybe too hasty but still correct. - This is too strong. The argument isn’t saying the inference is certainly false, just that it’s too hasty.
- CORRECT. The author is saying that the evidence isn’t strong enough to jump to this conclusion.
- It isn’t offered in support of the hypothesis, it is the opposing hypothesis. And the argument isn’t concluding it to be false.
- It is not offered as evidence for the conclusion.
Recap: The question begins with “It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Role questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Role in Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Role in Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers role in argument questions.
Hi Graeme,
I ended up getting this question right but not until after painful deliberation over answer choice A. The core of my question is this: how are we to know which ‘argument’ is being referenced in the answer choice? I wasn’t sure, and this led me to think A looked decent – as it seemingly presented an argument that couldn’t be ‘consistent’ with the argument that the speaker was making (that the former was too hasty). Any ideas here? I see no discussion of this so hopefully I’m just missing something obvious? Do the answer choices never refer to the author’s conclusion as an ‘argument’?
Hi! All of the answer choices in this question are actually referring to the stimulus when they say “the argument”.
How to figure this out is to read the relatively abstract/general answer choices in the context of the stimulus and the question stem. The question is asking us what role the claim that T.rex could only be a scavenger, not a hunter, plays. This is the argument that the author says is an overly hasty inference.
So A says “It [the overly hasty inference] is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument [stimulus] to be logically inconsistent with the conclusion advanced by the argument [the conclusion of the stimulus]”. Note that as soon as you substitute “It” with the argument that is an overly hasty inference, it becomes clear that “the argument” in the answer choice is the stimulus. Otherwise it would have read “It [the overly hasty inference] is a hypothesis that is claimed in the argument [the overly hasty inference] …” which makes no sense.
Hopefully that clarifies things!
Hey Graeme,
I’m having a hard time understanding how C is correct.
I get how the introduction of the claim that if T-Rex’s prey was larger than itself counters the notion that T-Rex was probably not a hunter, but how does introducing this hypothetical undermine the sufficiency of the evidence?
To me, this is merely a new consideration that proves inconsistent with the claim, not an inherent detraction from the evidence presented.
AKA, how does introducing a new, hypothetical consideration = undermining the sufficiency of existing evidence???
Thanks, Sam
Hi Sam!
A key point to consider is that C states it “attempts to undermine” the hypothesis by “calling into question” the sufficiency of the evidence. It doesn’t state whether it successfully achieved this goal or not.
The argument is attempting to undermine the idea that T.rex could only be a scavenger by showing that there may be a case in which T.rex has a prey even larger than itself, in which case it would not be too slow to be a hunter.
So, C isn’t making any judgments about the evidence presented against the original hypothesis – it is just pointing out that the argument is trying to undermine the original hypothesis in the first place. Hopefully that clears things up.