Q15 - Loggerhead turtles live and breed

[avironstyl]

Why is the answer D?

I am not seeing the connection between the 95% DNA from the Pacific (Baja and Japanese LH) vs. the Atlantic LH.

Thanks

[avironstyl]

Just realized why--please correct me if I am wrong though!

"New evidence suggests" an alternative to the fact that they live and breed in groups by suggesting that only 95% of their DNA is matching indicating their is still a difference in the groups. Therefore, this new "data/evidence" is weakened by the fact that the Baja turtles DNA matches 95% to the Atlantic turtles?

[noah]

I have a feeling you've lost sight of your job here. It's a weaken question, so find the core, identify the gap, and then evaluate the answers looking for an answer that weakens the reasoning, the connection between the premise and conclusion - you're not trying to debunk the premise or even the conclusion.

So, the core of this argument is:

95% of Baja DNA match turtles in Japanese nest sites --> baby Pacific loggerheads hatch in Japan

Do you see a gap? Read like a debater. Do we have to conclude that the babies hatch in Japan if we find that 95% of the DNA matches? No. The data could not lead to that conclusion. As (D) suggests, perhaps other turtles, ones that definitely do not hatch in Japan, have the same 95% DNA. That would mean that having a 95% match-up is not meaningful.

(A) is tempting - they found other nests in the pacific. However, perhaps those nests are for different loggerhead turtles.

(B) is unimportant - maybe the Atlantic turtles are wimps while the Pacific ones eat their Wheaties.

(C) is comparing nest numbers in Japan to those near the Baja peninsula. But who cares how many nests there are? Maybe the number of Baja Peninsula turtles is declining! That would match them up with the Japanese phenomenon. And how many nests are there in the Baja peninsula - maybe the number is constantly at 2!

(E) aquariums?! You'd have to do a ton of work to make this answer relevant - the turtles would have to plan and execute a daring escape and then disperse to the various turtle clubs that are discussed in this problem.

[WaltGrace1983]

Couldn't the wrong answers basically be eliminated because they don't relate to DNA? I mean, sure, perhaps some of them could weaken the CONCLUSION but we need to weaken the ARGUMENT. Thus, we need to prove that, although 95% of the DNA matches, this isn't exactly sufficient for the conclusion to follow.

[maryadkins]

Couldn't the wrong answers basically be eliminated because they don't relate to DNA? I mean, sure, perhaps some of them could weaken the CONCLUSION but we need to weaken the ARGUMENT. Thus, we need to prove that, although 95% of the DNA matches, this isn't exactly sufficient for the conclusion to follow.

I think that's fair to say. I wouldn't say that they need to use the actual term "DNA," but they would somehow need to get at the same idea"”that genetically, they could still be very similar to Japanese turtles but not actually have hatched over there. That kind of line would do the job without using the WORD "DNA."

(Also, I've never before written the term, "Japanese turtles." That was kind of fun.)

[synapse1223]

Ok, am I just completely overlooking something? How is this even an argument? This seems like it's just a fact set...

[ashley_k2204]

Ok, am I just completely overlooking something? How is this even an argument? This seems like it's just a fact set...

I agree. It seems like a fact set. Can someone help by writing out the premises and the conclusion? Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Noah already did that above. The part before the arrow is the premise, the part after is the conclusion.

-t

[JRosenspan]

Jeffrey Rosenspan on LSAT Loggerhead Turtles

I find that it's useful to break the stimulus into three parts, as shown below...

Evidence: Baja Turtles - DNA match - Japanese Turtles
Assumption: the match is unique and proves something
Conclusion: LT live and breed in distinct groups

To Weaken the conclusion, attack the assumption!

My Prediction for Weakening the Assumption: the DNA match does not prove anything

(D) DNA doesn't prove anything

Done!

[JRosenspan]

they don't relate to DNA?

Totally! Excellent shortcut. All the other answers are out of the scope!

- Jeffrey Rosenspan

[RawanB77]

I am having great difficulty trying to understand what answer choice (C) is trying to say and why it is incorrect. Any help clearing that up will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[sandras572]

I am having great difficulty trying to understand what answer choice (C) is trying to say and why it is incorrect. Any help clearing that up will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi!
I spend a lot of time thinking about this answer choice.

I think what C wants to say is that : if pacific loggerhead turtles that feed near the Baja Peninsula hatch in Japanese waters, then the number of loggerhead hatchlings in Japanese waters and the number of nesting sites near Baja should be the same. Here, the numbers fail to match each other, then conclusion is destroyed even though they share same DNA.
However, the question of C is that, though numbers fail to match each other, the reason for this is not Pacific Baja loggerhead turtles don't hatch in Japanese, but maybe because, after they hatch in Japanese water, they end up going somewhere other than Baja - that's why the number of hatchlings seems declining. But all Pacific Baja loggerhead still hatch in Japanese water.

or maybe we could think this as: no correlation does not equal to no causation. (not sure)

this question is so tough!!!!