Q17 - The Gulches is an area

[lichenrachel]

I can't figure out why E explains the paradox. And why doesn't D?
Could anyone help me out here?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The paradox, specifically, is that --

(A) scientists used to not believe in the flood theory, because they didn't know how ice could melt so quickly (so as to flow down the rock so fast)

(B) scientists now believe in flood theory, even though they still don't know of a scientific process that can make ice melt so quickly.

We need an answer that helps explain why this might be.

The reason that (E) is correct is because it gives evidence to the point that the flood did occur. So, even if the scientists haven't figured out that one thing (how ice melted so quickly), it's still likely that the flood did occur and cause the ripples.

Take for example the following argument:

It used to be that people believed the sun revolved around the earth, and one reason was that no one had gone to the sun.

It is now believed that the earth revolves around the sun, even though no one has yet to go to the sun.

Notice this analogy shares a common trait with our original argument:
The evidence used before has still not been resolved, but that doesn't mean the opinion can't be changed.

(D) does not resolve the paradox because the paradox does not involve a comparison of one type of rock to another.

Super, super-hard Q. Thanks for bringing it up. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions!

[skapur777]

But couldn't C be correct because all the water from all these glaciers could have amassed (the flood) and cut the rock? This shows that the flood theory is still true, and even though they don't know of a process that could melt ice so quickly, it is irrelevant because the combined mass of the glaciers might not require such things...or it still might.

And so, the paradox is resolved (i think) because theres still a big flood and they don't exactly know how. it kind of ignores the last part, but it still resolves the discrepancy of accepting the flood theory yet not really having evidence for it...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The paradox is that -

Before, they didn't accept a theory because of a gap in understanding about how it works.

After, they accepted theory, even though there still exists a gap in understanding about how it works.

(C) has no clear impact on either of these components. So what if there was one glacier, or multiple glaciers? We need to know why the theory is accepted now though it wasn't accepted before. (E) gives us a reason -- there is other evidence of a flood. (C) talks about the number of glaciers. Unless we are given other info, the number of glaciers does not provide any direct evidence of a flood.

[nonameee]

I'm still not convinced why (C) is wrong.

As you've said above, they now accept a flood theory even though they don't know any process that can melt so much ice so quickly. OK.

But what if there were more than one glacier in the area that contributed to the creation of channels (as is indicated by option (C))? More glaciers means more water. More water means that in the same amount of time the melted water would do the same work as the water from one glacier over a longer period of time. Isn't that obvious? And, therefore, the flood theory holds, although they still don't know would could melt the water so quickly.

Please explain.

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm still not convinced why (C) is wrong.

As you've said above, they now accept a flood theory even though they don't know any process that can melt so much ice so quickly. OK.

But what if there were more than one glacier in the area that contributed to the creation of channels (as is indicated by option (C))? More glaciers means more water. More water means that in the same amount of time the melted water would do the same work as the water from one glacier over a longer period of time. Isn't that obvious? And, therefore, the flood theory holds, although they still don't know would could melt the water so quickly.

Please explain.

The problem with (C) is that it does not resolve the paradox we are looking for.

Our paradox?

In the past: Scientists reject theory of flood because scientists do not know how much ice could melt so quickly.

Presently: Scientists accept theory of flood even though scientists do not know how so much ice could melt so quickly.

So we must have more information as to why the scientists are now accepting the theory when it was the case that scientists were, at one time in the past, rejecting that theory on grounds that remain unresolved.

Answer choices:

(C) More than one glacier was present in the area during prehistoric times.

Would knowing this tell us why scientists now accept the theory of flooding? No it does not. Why? We are told that scientists do not know how so much ice could melt so quickly. Even if it were the case that there were 20 glaciers, scientists do not know of a natural process that can explain the amount of ice that melted so quickly.

So this idea of multiple glaciers is not helping us determine why it is the case that scientists now accept the theory.

It is the case that it would produce more water, but scientists still do not know how so much ice could melt so quickly.

[nonameee]

Tim, thanks for your reply.

I understand your point. But before they thought that there was just one source of water (i.e., one glacier). Now they've discovered that there were more than one source (i.e., multiple glaciers).

They also didn't know how so much water could be melted so quickly. Or, in other words, they didn't know how so much water could be produced so quickly. They still don't know it.

If they have discovered that there were more than just one glacier, then it obviously means that those glaciers could produce proportionally more water than one glacier. So although they still don't know what process can melt so much water so quickly, now they actually don't have to know it since they have discovered an alternative way of how these channels could have been formed.

What's wrong with this reasoning?

[timmydoeslsat]

Not knowing a natural process that could melt so much ice so quickly caused the scientists to reject the flood theory

They now accept the flood theory.

For the scientists to now accept the flood theory, one of two things had to happen. Either they now know of a natural process that can melt so much ice so quickly, or the flood came from some other source.

We know that the scientists still do not know of a natural process that can melt so much ice so quickly.

For the scientists to accept the flood theory today, there must be some basis for where the flooding came from. This other source is not going to work with glaciers. They simply would not accept the theory due to the fact that they didn't know about the ice aspect. That aspect remains unchanged no matter how many glaciers were present. This uncertainty caused scientists to reject the theory. This same uncertainty still exists with more glaciers.

This uncertainty is NOT present with choice (E). This flood theory has its water coming from something other than melting ice.

Although it is the case that there would be more water than with just one glacier, having multiple glaciers does not remove the uncertainty about so much ice melting so quickly. When you have that line of thought, we will call it A, you end with the effect of B, which is rejection of theory.

The line of thought (A) is still present with the theory of multiple glaciers even if you have more water. So we would expect an effect of (B), rejection.

[john.o.wray]

I actually agree with nonamee-- the presence of more glaciers would, in fact, create more water.

BUT, I ruled out C pretty easily for one reason: it didn't say that these glaciers were on top of this mountain. It just said that they were "in the area". So the fact that there are more glaciers is irrelevant. Whoop de doo-- there are 89 glaciers 10 miles away... Doesn't matter.

[JinZ551]

I wrongly picked A because I missed the key word "flood" here. Now I know A is wrong because "the channels were clearly cut out by running water", which means scientists have no doubt about this. And it does no help to support the FLOOD theory.