Q13 - Scientist: It seems likely that the earliest dinosaurs

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen EXCEPT

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Earliest flying dinos probably started gliding out of trees rather than launching off the ground.
Evidence: Animals that start flying by gliding from trees can fly with really simple wings, such as those we'd associate with early flying dinos.

Answer Anticipation:
The two biggest patterns on Strengthen/Weaken are Causality and Comparisons. This argument is comparative. We're assuming that since early dinos and certain flying animals had [Very Simple Wings] in common, they should also have [Started Flying by Gliding From Trees] in common. Our job with strengthening comparisons is to show more similarity. Our job with weakening is to show important differences. Our four strengthenes will probably be a mix of evidence of dinos gliding from trees, reasons they wouln't launch from ground, and more similarity between flying dinos and the other tree gliding animals.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Correct. At first this seems like it strengthens, but it's only saying the nest is near the BASE of a tree. It doesn't give us as much reason to think that dinos were UP in trees as do (B) and (E).

(B) Strengthens: evidence that dinos could have climbed up the tree to launch off.

(C) Strengthens: feathers would have given more control to tree gliders than to ground-launchers.

(D) Strengthens: evidence against ground-launching

(E) Strengthens: since the most dangerous predators couldn't climb trees, it's very plausible that dinos would have learned/evolved to climb trees as a means of escape. Once up there, more plausible that flying started by gliding out of trees.

Takeaway/Pattern: Wow. That was mean. I'm sure most people are picking (E). They really put (A) and (B) next to each other to create this holistic sense of, "Okay, we got it … dinos were near trees, in trees, climbing trees". But the base of the tree is where it hits the ground, so all it establishes is that dinos were NEAR trees. Meanwhile, (E) takes a while to unpack. It probably feels like a stretch to many, but LSAT loaded it with strong language to make it more compelling. Every animal would presumably adapt behaviorally to its most dangerous predator. If climbing trees was an escape plan, it builds the evolutionary evidence that predators chased the dinos into trees and then simple wings allowed dinos to glide out of them.

#officialexplanation

[ChrisS148]

In my view A, does actually strengthen the conclusion because it lets us know there were trees in the area to be flown from. It would be difficult for a dinosaur to fly from trees if there are no trees around...

I won't dispute that E also strengthens - I was actually really stuck between the two during the test and sank way too much time into it. Just gonna chalk this one up as one of those questions the LSAT puts in to try to throw off perfect scorers.

[JohnK357]

I think this is one of the worst questions I've seen on the LSAT. Usually even with the most difficult, tricky questions I'm able to see why the correct answer is, well, correct, often with the help of great explanations I find on this forum. With this one, for answer choice A there's a plausible reason on how it could indeed strengthen the argument, and with E it's just as easy to show how it's irrelevant to the claim that early dinos glided out of trees.

For A, if they built their nests near the base of trees, it seems reasonable to assume that the proximity to the tree led to an evolution in the ability to both climb and glide out of the tree. Perhaps they built their nests so close to the tree BECAUSE they have the ability to either climb or fly out of them.

I think E even worse. The fact that their most dangerous predators could not climb trees tells us nothing about whether the dinos do. Even assuming that we could make the inference that they climb trees, how that that help us determine whether they fly/glide? So their predators can't climb and I'm supposed to make the leap that this led to them evolving not only the ability to climb, but also to freaking fly??? That's absurd. What if they developed some other sort of defense, like running really fast, or armored plates, to protect them from these dangerous predators? If I had taken this test I would have definitely challenged this question.

I know this looks like a rant, and it sort of is, but any advice on how I can get questions like this correct in the future would be great. Am I thinking about it the wrong way? Making too many leaps and not sticking to the scope of the question and answers? Really appreciate any help.

[CraigO192]

I'm quite conflicted and need some help.

p.s. I think this question is downright mean.

Conclusion: Dinos glided out of trees. They did not fly from a running start.

StrengthenX answer: Find the answer that either weakens this argument, or provides no substance of strengthening.

B/C/D are clear-cut wrong for me.

E: Dinos' predators cannot climb trees. ... When I took this question, I thought to myself: Well, what if that means dinos' HAD to learn to evade predators by flying while being pursued by predators? This could weaken the argument! ... So I picked it.

A: Dinos built nests right next to trees ... Again, I thought to myself: Okay, so dinos were prompted to learn to climb trees due to their proximity. That strengthens! ... So I excluded it.

Upon reviewing, I was upset because I thought E had legitimate claims of weakening the argument, and A/E were asking us to both make leaps, yet I was punished for making a leap that appeared equally justifiable as the other.

I perhaps skipped a minor detail; Dinos' predators could not climb trees... It doesn't say they couldn't fly. Therefore dinos climbed trees to stay out of constant threat of predators, and learned to glide out of there (strengthen). But, if those predators could fly, they would just attack the dinos straight out of the trees? We're supposed assume that by dinos' predators having the inability to climb trees that the dinos learned to do so as a counter? Why wouldn't they just learn to fly from a run? If dinos' predators can fly, then climbing the trees serves no purpose; the predators can fly to meet them anywhere? I digress...

With dinos' nests' being so close to trees, we make the leap that dinos were prompted to learn to climb -> glide. But this questions deems that an insurmountable logical leap. We have no proof they could climb trees, but again answer E has no proof what the predators can or cannot do, besides climbing trees. I guess it was easier for the dinos to take coverage in the trees and slowly learn to glide out of there -- as opposed to learning to fly from a run while being pursued?

There's just so many leaps between A/E that one can conceivably make in both directions.

[XiangruC274]

Let me try to justify choice A:
Indeed, E doesn't seem strength the argument well enough.
However, when I struggled between A and E. I found the choice A a bit weird: If early flying dinosaurs decide to build their nest near the tree---at the base of trees, in order to easily climb and gliding out of trees, why don't they build their nest at the top of trees?
Therefore, to me, the saying that "Early flying dinosaurs built their nests at the base of trees" seems like weaken rather than strength the argument.
Hope my answer helps.

[yingz53]

My way to understand why A is the most suitable answer is to strengthen the similarity for a more persuasive comparison. It's how this argument works.

So the feature which can be the only similarity in the stimulus is 'gliding from trees'. So we can simplify our task into strengthen that the dinosaur indeed ’gliding from trees ‘ instead of only on the ground. In this way, you can be prevented from being distracted by your imaginative thoughts about strengthening the conclusion which might work but is not intended by the LSAT writer.

By thinking in this way, A looks obviously right. And next time you see a comparison, you can also try this process to approach the right answer.