Discussion
Atrens’s conclusion follows logically if which one of
the following is assumed?
*This question is included in Free Complete Section: LR-B, June '07 LSAT, question #5
| (A) | Ant societies do not interact in all the same ways that human societies interact. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 01/24/2012 11:17
I am having trouble understanding why choice C is the correct answer. I am a bit confused
Posted: 01/24/2012 11:18
It is for question 5.. The ant dumping site
Posted: 07/08/2015 11:03
Reply:
Posted: 01/24/2012 11:58
Melissa,
A = particles is food, ants social and dispatching food
B = particles is waste, ants anti-social and dumping waste(ergo possible caca)
Atrens' conclusion is 'the early entomologist is wrong'
Atrens can only make that conclusion logically if he assumes that 'the further research including their findings' is actually true and assuming they are, the particles have to be waste i.o. food in order to call it 'their dumping site' and that make 'the early entomologist wrong.'
Niels
A = particles is food, ants social and dispatching food
B = particles is waste, ants anti-social and dumping waste(ergo possible caca)
Atrens' conclusion is 'the early entomologist is wrong'
Atrens can only make that conclusion logically if he assumes that 'the further research including their findings' is actually true and assuming they are, the particles have to be waste i.o. food in order to call it 'their dumping site' and that make 'the early entomologist wrong.'
Niels
Posted: 01/25/2012 01:44
Yeah, Niels has a good take on this one.
Here's what we know:
Premise 1: The ants were carrying particles to their neighbor's nest
Premise 2: The entomologist inferred that the ants were bringing food to their neighbors
Premise 3: The particles the ants were bringing to their neighbors were from their own colony’s dumping site
Missing Premise: ???
Conclusion: the entomologist is wrong (the ants were not actually bringing food to their neighbors)
So, what's required in order to draw the conclusion? Well, we know that the ants are bringing particles to their neighbor's nest. And we know that the particles are coming from the ants' dump site. In order to conclude that the ants are NOT bringing food to their neighbors, we'd have to assume that the particles they are bringing over from the dump site are NOT food.
Choice (C) gives us what we're looking for.
Does this make sense? If it's still confusing, let me know.
Here's what we know:
Premise 1: The ants were carrying particles to their neighbor's nest
Premise 2: The entomologist inferred that the ants were bringing food to their neighbors
Premise 3: The particles the ants were bringing to their neighbors were from their own colony’s dumping site
Missing Premise: ???
Conclusion: the entomologist is wrong (the ants were not actually bringing food to their neighbors)
So, what's required in order to draw the conclusion? Well, we know that the ants are bringing particles to their neighbor's nest. And we know that the particles are coming from the ants' dump site. In order to conclude that the ants are NOT bringing food to their neighbors, we'd have to assume that the particles they are bringing over from the dump site are NOT food.
Choice (C) gives us what we're looking for.
Does this make sense? If it's still confusing, let me know.
Posted: 01/18/2013 20:34
Thanks Brendan, the explanation was very clear.
Posted: 07/04/2012 01:49
The last explanation was perfect, thanks
Posted: 07/27/2012 14:35
I agree
Posted: 08/01/2012 19:35
Thank you for your compliments Dereya and Kamal. If you like our app and the service, please take a second and show us some love in the iTunes Store rating.
Posted: 05/20/2013 11:08
Why isn't it E? Thank you
Posted: 05/20/2013 14:25
To give an abstraction of reality:
Someone may retract an earlier conclusion based on new information, while earlier certainty reduces, maybe all the way to zero but the final conclusion is in rare cases equal to the first conclusion after all...
This to say, a retraction of an earlier conclusion doesn't imply the wrong conclusion. You might know a few cases of law involving witnesses with suspects of a particular type...
So the bottom line here is that E, still needs C to determine the era.ier conclusion is wrong.
Niels
Someone may retract an earlier conclusion based on new information, while earlier certainty reduces, maybe all the way to zero but the final conclusion is in rare cases equal to the first conclusion after all...
This to say, a retraction of an earlier conclusion doesn't imply the wrong conclusion. You might know a few cases of law involving witnesses with suspects of a particular type...
So the bottom line here is that E, still needs C to determine the era.ier conclusion is wrong.
Niels
Posted: 06/18/2013 14:47
Wow such in depth analysis.
I chose C because if Atren concluded that if the ants carried food (particles) to the neighbors, then the particles must be food.
If the particles are not food, then Atrens is wrong.
There is still no way to conclude that it is a dumping site based the information given, unless we speculate that "later discoveries" must be absolutely true and correct.
I chose C because if Atren concluded that if the ants carried food (particles) to the neighbors, then the particles must be food.
If the particles are not food, then Atrens is wrong.
There is still no way to conclude that it is a dumping site based the information given, unless we speculate that "later discoveries" must be absolutely true and correct.