Q16 - The authors of a recent

[carly.applebaum]

i narrowed it down to A and E. I picked E because i thought that this answer choice offered an alternative reason for why the fish became extinct. if they were commercially important, maybe a lot of the fish were used for commercial reasons and that is the reason they became extinct. maybe i am reading too much into this answer choice?

can someone explain why A is better than E?

thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

i narrowed it down to A and E. I picked E because i thought that this answer choice offered an alternative reason for why the fish became extinct. if they were commercially important, maybe a lot of the fish were used for commercial reasons and that is the reason they became extinct. maybe i am reading too much into this answer choice?

can someone explain why A is better than E?

thanks!

This question stem does not ask us to find an alternative reason for why the fish became extinct.

This question stem is asking us which question could we ask that would help determine whether this is a good argument or not.

The stimulus goes like this:

- Authors examine the question of whether an impending mass wave of extinctions will take place in the next 100 years.

-These authors say there is no evidence that the rate of extinction is now accelerating.

-Our conclusion is that these authors are wrong, that there is evidence.

- We are given data on subspecies of North American fishes where we are shown that they are indeed increasingly becoming more extinct.

However, the question is whether this fact of subspecies of North American fishes collapsing is representative of animal species becoming extinct.

If it were true that it was unrepresentative, then this argument is ruined. The evidence would be irrelevant to the concept of animal species.

If it were representative, then the argument makes a great point. The extinction rate would be increasing.

Answer choice E would not help in evaluating whether or not the evidence is relevant to making this argument work. If the extinct species were or were not commerically important, the species are still extinct. How does this fish subspecies issue impact our claim in regards to mass extinctions of animal species.

[513852276]

I found answer A is questionable. Conclusion in stimulus is: there is no evidence to support that animal species' extinction rate is now accelerating. Any counter example to show "there is an evidence" is sufficient to reject the conclusion, no matter the example is "representative" or not.

It make me wonder is there a difference between "rate of extinction" and "rates of extinction" in conclusion. As "rate" in singular require a counter example to show an "general" extinction rate is accelerating. In comparison, "rates of extinction" require a counter example only to show that "one animal's" extinction rate is accelerating. An analogy may be: to reject "rate of 170+ in lsats is below 5%" you need to count an average general rate for all LSAT tests. However, when reject "rates of 170+ in lsats is below 5%" you could reject it by show only one LSAT exam, in which rate of 170+ is above 5% (tell me which one.....). Is this right?

[maryadkins]

I think your singular/plural dichotomy here is going to end up leading you in the wrong direction. "Rate" versus "Rates" is probably not going to be where the LSAT snags you, at least not in a question like this.

Let's step back.

First off, the conclusion of the argument is that there IS evidence; the person arguing disagrees with the authors. The argument that there is no evidence is the opposing point.

timmydoeslsat's analysis is good here and right on—if what is happening to the fish isn't also happening to other species, then the fish AREN'T evidence and the argument goes south fast.

(A) would help us figure out if this is true.

As for the others:

(B) - (E) all stick with fishes! The most helpful thing we want to know however is how other species compare to fishes.

Hope this helps!