Q9 - Some scientists believe that small humanoid skeletons

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Common argument form - a counterpoint is introduced; the author hops in with his opinion; and the evidence backing it up is presented (in this case, a comparison and a scientific pattern).

Answer Anticipation:
These skeletons more likely represent a distinct human species.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Counterpoint.

(B) Winner!

(C) Premise.

(D) Premise/comparison.

(E) Necessary assumption (not stated in argument).

Takeaway/Pattern: Look out for the common argument structure noted above. Also, language like "more likely" is more likely (!) to show up in the conclusion than a premise.

#officialexplanation

[tuf58975]

Can a LSAT Greek help me to explain a little bit why C is wrong? I think this whole paragraph talks about "the early small humanoid skeletons does not match with the growth disorder pattern." and it gives the premises that 1). "it represents the environment pressure that makes it so small" 2). "certain fox and mouse species on the island also have the similar small body." Therefore, the small size of the early small humanoid skeletons is not due to the growth disorder.

Please help, much appreciated!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Which of these makes more sense?

"It's more likely that these skeletons are small because they're a different, smaller species than that they're small because of some growth disorder."

Why? What's your support?

"Well ... these skeletons DON'T fit the pattern of known growth disorders, and there IS evidence that other animals on this island evolved into a different, smaller species."

================

or

"These skeletons don't fit the pattern of known growth disorders"

Why? What's your support?"

"Well it's more likely that these skeletons are small because they're a different, smaller species than because they have a growth disorder."
"and you can also tell these skeletons don't fit the pattern of known growth disorders because foxes and mice on the island have evolved into smaller versions." ????

That 2nd idea doesn't provide any support for the idea that these skeletons don't fit the pattern of growth disorders.

Meanwhile, when you make the "it is more likely" sentence the conclusion, the two premises both work logically together.

If you're trying to support that "X is more likely to be Y", it's sensible to have two premises: "Here's a reason AGAINST Y, and here's a reason FOR X."

And if you're a fan of keywords, it will always be the case that when you see ...
CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 2, and CLAIM 3

... claim 1 will be the conclusion.

The reason: the word "and" means that you are pairing together two claims that are on the same level