Really confused by this one! I picked D but I realized it was wrong because the frequency could be higher at the end but that could mean that there could be 2 meteorites instead of one and does not explain the uniform iridium that is talked about in the passage.
And while I see that the others are wrong, is E a very weak weakener? Because it says that they are much more vulnerable to extinction extinction when exposed to dramatic and sudden changes...yet the passage indicates that many marine organisms died out due to gradual changes. So even if E were true, it does not really weaken the theory since the facts show that gradual changes caused the marine organisms to die out.
?
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ManhattanPrepLSAT1
-
Thanks Received: 1909
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: October 07th, 2009
Re: Q7
Yes, your reason for eliminating answer choice (E) is correct. It would not refute the claim that many organisms did die out when the oceans gradually fell. This simply tells us that many more would have died out had the change been precipitous.
Answer choice (B) weakens that argument by providing an example where the presumed cause occurs and yet the presumed effect does not - classical LSAT approach to weakening causation.
(A) supports the argument rather than weakens it.
(C) is irrelevant to the causal argument made in the last paragraph. This doesn't suggest an alternative cause for these die-offs.
(D) is tempting as it presents an alternative cause. But we have to remember that we're trying to weaken the possibility that volcanic eruptions could have caused the extinctions. Because of the weakness of the theory, suggesting an alternative possible cause doesn't weaken whether the volcanic eruption theory could aslo be a possible cause.
(E) is irrelevant to the argument. There's no need to compare the vulnerability to extinction of marine species to two different events, one of which never occurred.
Thanks for bringing this one to the forum!
Answer choice (B) weakens that argument by providing an example where the presumed cause occurs and yet the presumed effect does not - classical LSAT approach to weakening causation.
(A) supports the argument rather than weakens it.
(C) is irrelevant to the causal argument made in the last paragraph. This doesn't suggest an alternative cause for these die-offs.
(D) is tempting as it presents an alternative cause. But we have to remember that we're trying to weaken the possibility that volcanic eruptions could have caused the extinctions. Because of the weakness of the theory, suggesting an alternative possible cause doesn't weaken whether the volcanic eruption theory could aslo be a possible cause.
(E) is irrelevant to the argument. There's no need to compare the vulnerability to extinction of marine species to two different events, one of which never occurred.
Thanks for bringing this one to the forum!
3 posts Page 1 of 1