Q18 - Because dinosaurs were reptiles

[b91302310]

For this question, I am confused about why "today's" reptiles could be sufficient to invalidate the researchers' conclusion of the dinosaurs ?

Could anyone explain it ?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Can you please explain your question better, and double check your answer key to be sure you know what the correct answer is?

Also, note that your job here is not necessarily to invalidate the conclusion, but rather simply make it less likely.

[b91302310]

Sorry for the mistake....

I double checked the answer with the one given by the Prep. The answer is (D) and I think (D) is fine.

Thanks.

[eagerlawstudent]

I don't understand why D is the best answer. Someone please help me out here. Thank you.

[bbirdwell]

If the dinosaurs migrated, perhaps they did not actually live in the freezing areas during winter,but lived there in the summer before moving on to warmer places.

This is a good example of a "weaken" answer choice that does not destroy the conclusion, but questions it in a legitimate way that may at first seem out of scope.

[LSAT-Chang]

If the dinosaurs migrated, perhaps they did not actually live in the freezing areas during winter,but lived there in the summer before moving on to warmer places.

This is a good example of a "weaken" answer choice that does not destroy the conclusion, but questions it in a legitimate way that may at first seem out of scope.

Hi Brian, I have a question about your explanation for (D). I understand the whole idea of dinosaurs having migrated -- and therefore could have been likely that they temporarily lived there during summer, and not actually during winter, however, i seem to have a hard time interpreting how the "fossils" would have been found in the norther arctic then.. does this make sense? because the argument says that fossils were discovered in the northern arctic, and so if these dinosaurs were "migrating" how is it possible that there are fossils left behind?? are you saying that they could have died during the summer and that these researchers are flawed in that they didn't take into account the fact that they could have died during summer for other reasons than them dying during winter of cold? i hope my question makes sense.. please let me know if you don't quite understand what i mean (i'll try to explain it better!).

[bbirdwell]

are you saying that they could have died during the summer and that these researchers are flawed in that they didn't take into account the fact that they could have died during summer for other reasons than them dying during winter of cold?

Sounds like you got it.

[jon7ng]

Can you please explain how C makes the argument sound better? The self-study guide has this as an example on pg. 236. It says that C makes it sounds like the dinosaurs died during very cold temperatures and that it supports the idea that the dinosaurs died in the winter... but then it says that this would make the author's argument sound better.
This does not make sense to me at all. If the dinosaurs died during very cold temperatures, wouldn't this weaken the core which says that dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded to survive the cold temperatures. It seems that if dinosaurs died during the cold temperatures then maybe they weren't warm blooded and they were cold blooded so that's why they died.

Overall I understand why D is correct, and how C is kind of vague. I just don't understand at all how this supports the author in any way at all.

Thanks so much for your helping my confusion.

[jardinsouslapluie5]

are you saying that they could have died during the summer and that these researchers are flawed in that they didn't take into account the fact that they could have died during summer for other reasons than them dying during winter of cold?

Sounds like you got it.

It seems to me there are lots of assumption to reach to answer.
I mean, rest of the choices aren't good, but if I need to assume this much, what is the difference?
Like (A), I could say, okay so "TODAY'S reptiles" are confined in tropical climate, but we don't know about the dinosaurs so we cannot conclude some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

I am kind of losing the range of reasonable assumption.
Where to stop and how much more I can assume to get to correct answers in general. Maybe on more on weakening questions.

[griffin.811]

are you saying that they could have died during the summer and that these researchers are flawed in that they didn't take into account the fact that they could have died during summer for other reasons than them dying during winter of cold?

Sounds like you got it.

It seems to me there are lots of assumption to reach to answer.
I mean, rest of the choices aren't good, but if I need to assume this much, what is the difference?
Like (A), I could say, okay so "TODAY'S reptiles" are confined in tropical climate, but we don't know about the dinosaurs so we cannot conclude some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

I am kind of losing the range of reasonable assumption.
Where to stop and how much more I can assume to get to correct answers in general. Maybe on more on weakening questions.

It seems like you may just be over thinking the assumption piece. Just think in terms of an argument. If you told me "the dinosaurs were reptiles, and may have been warm blooded because sci have discovered fossils in an are too cold for cold blooded animals" if you wanted to refute this you wouldn't say "Well the reptiles today can only live in warm weather, so you're wrong" You'd likely do the opposite and try to think of an example of a reptile that could, for whatever reason, potentially survive the cold.

Maybe you'd say something like "well snakes are also reptiles, and they manage to survive the freezing cold nights in the dessert..."

HTH

[ivank]

Please help me to reconcile my thinking with the book's reasoning.

(C) The arctic dinosaur fossils were found alongside fossils of
plants known for their ability to withstand extremely cold
temperatures.

LR Book explanation (p.248):
...If this is true, it would seem the dinosaurs died during very cold temperatures. It supports the idea, perhaps, that the dinosaurs died in the winter. Let's leave it for now.
But wait a minute! That would make it so the author's argument sounds better, and we're looking to weaken.

We can eliminate this answer because it plays a reverse role.
By the way, we can also eliminate this answer because it doesn't actually indicate whether these plants (and thus the dinosaurs) actually died in extremely cold temperatures; we simply know that these plants were capable of withstanding cold temperatures. If you noticed this, perhaps you also noticed that this answer has no direct bearing on the conclusion-that some dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded.

Here is what I do not understand:
I thought the fact that the fossils of dinosaurs were found along the cold withstanding plants made me think/suggested that the dinosaurs did not have to be warm-blooded because they could and did "hide" "in" those plants during the cold times. Does it support that they necessarily died in the winter? I mean the idea that they could be fully protected (or just protected) by the plant eliminates this possibility, in my view. I think the statement supports the idea that the dinosaurs (being cold blooded) did survive the winters/cold because of the plants. Therefore it weakens the argument. Please explain where I am wrong.

Book's explanation does not make sense to me at all, unfortunately:
How does this answer support this: it would seem the dinosaurs died during very cold temperatures? Because they were found near the plants (protecting of extreme cold)? I do not understand how...

And two, based on the above and in my mind, it does not seem to play a reverse role.

Also, jon7ng's post addressed the same issue from a slightly different angle and it was not answered.

Thanks for help.

[christine.defenbaugh]

There are a lot of really great questions getting thrown around in here! Let's take a big step back and take this question from the top.

Since this is a weaken question, let's start by accurately laying out a simplified core.

Premise: Dinosaur fossils found in northern arctic.
Premise: Only warm-blooded animals could handle the arctic winter.
Conclusion: Some dinos might have been warm-blooded.

So we know dinos hung out in the arctic long enough to leave some fossils behind, but does that mean they could handle an arctic winter? Since that's our only connection to warm-blooded-ness, if we don't know that, we can't conclude that some dinos might be warm blooded. How in the world would we know?

Were the arctic winters back then as bad as they are now? Did the dinos stick around the arctic through the winter? Inquiring minds want to know! To weaken the conclusion, we need an answer that makes it less likely the dinos stuck out brutal arctic winters.

(D) gets right on it. If the dinos were migrating all around, then they probably hung around the arctic for a spell, then moved on to greener pastures in search of food. Nomadic rolling stones that they were, who's to say whether they summered in the arctic or wintered there? Or just came up for a holiday weekend? The fossils might well be remnants of the Fourth of July camping trip. The fossils are no more likely to have been created over winter than summer, so the fossils are no longer good evidence for some dinos being warm blooded!


Not Weakeners
(A) The fact that today's (cold-blooded) reptiles are confined to the temperate/tropical zone simply gives us more evidence that cold-blooded creatures wouldn't be slumming around the arctic. This premise booster certainly doesn't weaken the likelihood that our arctic dinos were warm-blooded.

(B) The relative size of the artic dinos to other dinos doesn't have anything to do with where they spent the winter or whether they were warm-blooded.

(C) Here we have an ice-hardy plant fossil near a dino fossil. We might be tempted to imagine that if the plant could survive the winter, then surely the dino could too! (This would make the answer a strengthener, if it were true.) But there's no indication that this is the case. Just because the plant was capable of surviving the intense cold does give us any information about the dino. If the dinos merely summered in the arctic, a few could have died next to these sturdy plants then. What the plant is *capable* of tells us nothing about what actually happened, nor about what the dinos themselves were capable of.

(E) We've established that current arctic winters are brutal enough that a cold-blooded creature wouldn't hang out for long. This answer tells us that the ancient arctic winters were just as bad, and in doing so, strengthens the argument that dinos sticking around through an arctic winter would likely be warm-blooded.



With regards to (D), ivank, your description of dinosaurs hiding in plants is incredibly creative! Unfortunately, it's far too creative for the LSAT. If dinosaurs could hide inside plants, those plants would have to be incredibly large. Or perhaps the dinosaurs would be incredibly small. Or both! Either way it sounds like an awesome movie, but not a very likely real life scenario.

Even if we did have a situation with giant plants that dinosaurs could hide inside, just because the plant itself is capable of withstanding the extreme cold would not necessarily mean that it can offer protection to other creatures. Perhaps the plant can stay alive even when all of its cells are at sub-zero temperatures - how it can stay alive that way, I don't know, but its probably not going to help anything else stay alive, even if they could get inside the plant somehow.


This is a tough question, with some sticky parts. Please let me know if you have additional questions on this, or need anything else clarified!

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought I'd just add something to these great analyses! I actually thought that (C) strengthened.

If these fossils were found next to other living things that could survive cold temperatures, then perhaps the dinosaurs - in a similar way - were actually warm-blooded. Being within the vicinity of something that can withstand arctic temperatures, in my reasoning, makes it more likely that the dinosaurs too could withstand cold temperatures and would thus be warm-blooded. I mean, sure, they certainly died in the cold temperatures but no dinosaur could live forever! They could have just died due to natural causes or (as previous LSAT experience would tell us) some major dust cloud that overcame the earth!

...I have learned more about dinosaurs (and global warming, alternative fuels, strange diseases, and environmental problems) through the LSAT than any other grade school class I took.