Recent LSAT trends and a LR question

[Migrate]

I've noticed that the LR questions got much easier in the early preptest 40's and that the scales got much tighter... Is this an evolution that we should expect for the June exam as well?

Also.. I have a question on preptest 41 section 3 question 22...

Paleotologist recently discovered teeth from several wooly mammoths on an isolated Arctic island where no mammoth fossils had previously been found. The teeth were 25% smaller on average than adult mammoth teeth that have been found elsewhere, but they are clearly adult mmmoth teeth. THerefore, provided that the teeth are representative of their respective populations, wolly mammoths that lived on the island were smaller on average than those that lived elsewhere.

So the answer is D) tooth size among adults wooly mammoths was always directly proportional to the overal size of those mammals.

my question is... isn't the conclusion of the argument conditional in nature?, "provided that the teeth are representative of their respective populations, wolly mammoths that lived on the island were smaller on average than those that lived elsewhere" seems like an "if then" statement to me, which shields it from having to presuppose the if clause. So for me, answer b), the tooth wear thatnaturally occurs in many aimals over the course of their audlt years did not result in a significant change in tooth size among adult wooly mammoths a they aged.

Can someone explain this to me?

Have a great day everybody

[«ě»]

I've found quite a few of the last LRs to be kinda hard actually, and I used to have pretty decent control on LR.

[mr]

That clause is simply an assumption - an assumption for the conclusion to follow; its an unstated premise; so quite literally in just a premise - nothing more. The argument procedes as follows.

Premise: There's the place where we found adult WM teeth.
Premise: The teeth are 25% smaller.
Premise: They are representitive of population as a whole.
Conclusion: These WM were smaller overall than the others.

The confusion I think is this. All of this stuff is basically conditional, because IF the premise isn't true, then the conclusion CAN'T follow anyway. So think of every premise as conditional in a way.

As for the answer choices, we need to justify the conclusion so that it has to follow from the premises.

The answer we are looking for is going to make us conclude that the size differencial in the teeth must indicate a size differential in overall body. That is what the argument is saying afterall. Answer B is very attractive because it seems to exclude the possibility of an alternative explantion for why the teeth are smaller, but that isn't important to the question in this case. Answer B is a brilliant answer choice to include because for a different problem it might be correct. Answer choice B being assumed or not being assumed doesn't make the conclusion be true anymore than before we assumed it because the effect of the teeth wearing would be uniform across all WM not just the island WM. Now someone might try to do some mental gymnastics and try to say there could be harder plants or something on the island..simple answer. don't. Answer choice B is not sufficient to make the conclusion happen, it's only getting rid of an alternate explantion. The correct answer on the LSAT is always the correct answer because it's so obvious once you know why it's right.

Which brings us to Answer D: It ties up the loose end in the formation of the argument which never says anything about teeth being representitive of size or that this has always been the case - afterall these teeth have been in the ground for a long time.




The LSAT LR section in my opinion in the more recent years is getting more 'tricky' for lack of a better term. The subtle way they limited the scope of the 'representitive' nature of the teeth to only refer to their own population (meaning the few teeth they found are representitive of the whole group, and not to mean that they are representitive of the overall size) is...tricky.

[theo]

I've noticed that the LR questions got much easier in the early preptest 40's and that the scales got much tighter... Is this an evolution that we should expect for the June exam as well?

Also.. I have a question on preptest 41 section 3 question 22...

Paleotologist recently discovered teeth from several wooly mammoths on an isolated Arctic island where no mammoth fossils had previously been found. The teeth were 25% smaller on average than adult mammoth teeth that have been found elsewhere, but they are clearly adult mmmoth teeth. THerefore, provided that the teeth are representative of their respective populations, wolly mammoths that lived on the island were smaller on average than those that lived elsewhere.

So the answer is D) tooth size among adults wooly mammoths was always directly proportional to the overal size of those mammals.

my question is... isn't the conclusion of the argument conditional in nature?, "provided that the teeth are representative of their respective populations, wolly mammoths that lived on the island were smaller on average than those that lived elsewhere" seems like an "if then" statement to me, which shields it from having to presuppose the if clause. So for me, answer b), the tooth wear thatnaturally occurs in many aimals over the course of their audlt years did not result in a significant change in tooth size among adult wooly mammoths a they aged.

Can someone explain this to me?

Have a great day everybody

What's the question stem?

[Migrate]

Thanks for the reply.
I understand what ur saying, but I'm just hella confused on when I should take the conclusion as a conditional conclusion and not a conditional conclusion.
For example, if the question said, "tHerefore, IF that the teeth are representative of their respective populations, wolly mammoths that lived on the island were smaller on average than those that lived elsewhere." (i.e. replacing presume with if), would that still make D) the answer? Is there never a conditional conclusion?....

[LizPendens™]

Theo don't slap me down. I can't take the pain.

you like the pain. you love it.

[LizPendens™]

there's not enough soap in the world to wash away that visual from my mind.

[walkaway]

there's not enough soap in the world to wash away that visual from my mind.

Aww you're just jealous he's not touching your "special place."

[LizPendens™]

there's not enough soap in the world to wash away that visual from my mind.

Aww you're just jealous he's not touching your "special place."

i'd never want to tear apart a special thang like rmkrause and theo. their love gives the world hope.

[LizPendens™]

i wouldn't want to, rm.