Discussion
Which one of the following is an assumption on which
the naturalist’s argument depends?
*This question is included in Free Complete Section: LR-B, June '07 LSAT, question #9
| (A) | Sheep farming drove the last Tasmanian tigers to starvation by chasing them from their natural habitat. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 08/18/2012 12:55
Could someone help me with this? I don't get it. I chose answer A. There is no mention of the naturalist's knowledge of different regions.
Posted: 01/03/2013 09:10
it should be considered as a question over the experiment . So it does not matter whether customers are allergic to the fabric softers. It is beyond the range of the experiment.
Posted: 08/18/2012 23:29
Maria, answer A is a mere restatement of the argument. The problem is asking for the assumption upon which the argument (sheep farming takes away the tiger's habitat) is based that would make the conclusion (Tasmanian tiger is extinct) correct.
The only choice that makes the conclusion correct is the assumption that the tigers doesn't move to another place where they can adapt.
The only choice that makes the conclusion correct is the assumption that the tigers doesn't move to another place where they can adapt.
Posted: 12/19/2012 12:15
Naturalists claim that this tiger is extinct.
This claim is based on the assumptions that:
- sheep farming has destroyed the tigers' natural habitat
- naturalists have found no carcasses
However:
-there have been sightings of these tigers
To make the assumption that the tigers are actually extinct, we must also assume that :
The tigers were unable to move to a different region
This claim is based on the assumptions that:
- sheep farming has destroyed the tigers' natural habitat
- naturalists have found no carcasses
However:
-there have been sightings of these tigers
To make the assumption that the tigers are actually extinct, we must also assume that :
The tigers were unable to move to a different region
Posted: 01/12/2013 08:16
Doesn't this also rely on the assumption that "every naturalist" in said region has looked "systematically" for evidence of the tiger's survival? Although the argument states that naturalists working in the region have seen no evidence of the tiger, it does not state whether these naturalists were assigned to look for such evidence or simply questioned as to whether they had seen such evidence while looking conducting their own research. In order for the argument to hold, mustn't we assume that these naturalists were specifically looking for the evidence required, and therefore would not c also be an adequate answer?
Posted: 01/31/2013 01:12
Rachel, I'm with you in this one. I also chose answer C and for similar reasons.. :-/
Posted: 02/07/2013 09:53
Don't understand why exactly this is the answer!
Posted: 03/03/2013 03:38
I also chose answer C, however because the argument deals specifically with survival in it's natural habitat, clearly their are other locations around the world that might be suitable with those conditions.
Posted: 03/08/2013 16:54
Hi, all -
Although [C] is a tempting answer, it is too strong to be correct. The argument does not DEPEND on an assumption unless the argument is rendered invalid if the assumption is false.
Notice that [C] specifies that EVERY naturalist in the area did a systematic search. This is too strong: although the argument could be said to rely on the assumption that a SUFFICIENT number of naturalists did a SUFFICIENTLY systematic search, that assumption is much weaker. Suppose, for example, that 1000 experts in the area did a careful, systematic search for tiger signs and found none. If there was also a 1001st expert present who stuck to library work, does that negate their findings? In other words, [C] does not have to be true for the argument to be valid.
By contrast, the argument's validity clearly does depend on the truth of [D]. If it is possible that the tigers simply adapted and moved elsewhere, then the fact that there are no signs of them in their original habitat is not enough to prove them extinct.
Hope this helps!
Best,
Lyn
Although [C] is a tempting answer, it is too strong to be correct. The argument does not DEPEND on an assumption unless the argument is rendered invalid if the assumption is false.
Notice that [C] specifies that EVERY naturalist in the area did a systematic search. This is too strong: although the argument could be said to rely on the assumption that a SUFFICIENT number of naturalists did a SUFFICIENTLY systematic search, that assumption is much weaker. Suppose, for example, that 1000 experts in the area did a careful, systematic search for tiger signs and found none. If there was also a 1001st expert present who stuck to library work, does that negate their findings? In other words, [C] does not have to be true for the argument to be valid.
By contrast, the argument's validity clearly does depend on the truth of [D]. If it is possible that the tigers simply adapted and moved elsewhere, then the fact that there are no signs of them in their original habitat is not enough to prove them extinct.
Hope this helps!
Best,
Lyn
Posted: 03/10/2013 14:22
Just so I understand how to answer other questions like this on the test, an assumption does not have to be stated in the premise of an argument?
I read this as a classic "if a, then b" argument:
"If naturalists in the area could find no evidence, then the tiger no longer exists."
So I guess when I needed the "assumption" of the argument I looked at the premise. (Which to me would be the "if a" side of an if-then argument) If we could prove that the naturalists were not looking for the evidence then we can nullify the premise and negate the argument.
To me, the question of a change in habitat for the tiger seemed external to the main argument. It is relevant, but to say it is an assumption on which the argument rests... Perhaps this person had not assumed that, nor thought about this theory, but we do know that this person assumed that the area where they were traditionally found was supposedly looked over by experts who knew what to look for.
Do we know that these naturalists can differentiate the markings of this animal from another similar animal? Are they specialists who know how to look for a very rare animal that may make itself very difficult to find? Are there dangerous or wild areas where these naturalists have not been looking? To me these are all relevant to the premise of the argument, therefore assumption this person has made. However, I did not see this argument make the assumption that the tiger would not travel elsewhere, therefore I would think that would be an external variable and an assumption for a new argument more relevant to the conclusion than the premise, such as:
"If the tigers moved to a new region, then the reviews argument does not prove that the tiger does not exist."
Sorry to keep on questioning this answer, but for future reference it would be helpful to know that to look for the assumption made in an argument one can negate the entire argument and does not specifically need to look at the stated premise.
Thank you everyone for your time and input!
I read this as a classic "if a, then b" argument:
"If naturalists in the area could find no evidence, then the tiger no longer exists."
So I guess when I needed the "assumption" of the argument I looked at the premise. (Which to me would be the "if a" side of an if-then argument) If we could prove that the naturalists were not looking for the evidence then we can nullify the premise and negate the argument.
To me, the question of a change in habitat for the tiger seemed external to the main argument. It is relevant, but to say it is an assumption on which the argument rests... Perhaps this person had not assumed that, nor thought about this theory, but we do know that this person assumed that the area where they were traditionally found was supposedly looked over by experts who knew what to look for.
Do we know that these naturalists can differentiate the markings of this animal from another similar animal? Are they specialists who know how to look for a very rare animal that may make itself very difficult to find? Are there dangerous or wild areas where these naturalists have not been looking? To me these are all relevant to the premise of the argument, therefore assumption this person has made. However, I did not see this argument make the assumption that the tiger would not travel elsewhere, therefore I would think that would be an external variable and an assumption for a new argument more relevant to the conclusion than the premise, such as:
"If the tigers moved to a new region, then the reviews argument does not prove that the tiger does not exist."
Sorry to keep on questioning this answer, but for future reference it would be helpful to know that to look for the assumption made in an argument one can negate the entire argument and does not specifically need to look at the stated premise.
Thank you everyone for your time and input!
Posted: 03/16/2013 02:21
Hi, Rachel -
No, the premise of an implication (i.e., the 'A' of "if A then B") is not an assumption. Rather, it is a sufficient condition for the conclusion. An assumption, by contrast, is a proposition, often unstated and even overlooked, that must be true in order for an argument to be valid.
For example, I can state that "if I have no apples, then I cannot make an apple pie," and that statement will be true whether or not I actually have apples. Thus "I have no apples" is the premise of the implication, but it is not an assumption.
If, on the other hand, I state that "If I go outside now without my umbrella, I will get wet," I have once again stated an implication with a premise ("I go outside now without my umbrella") and a conclusion ("I get wet"), but the statement is not necessarily true, as there is an unstated assumption: that it is raining outside. If it is not raining outside, then the implication is false and any reasoning based on it is invalid.
Hidden assumptions of this type often result in flawed reasoning, so you will often see LSAT questions asking you to find such assumptions. You should not expect them to be explicitly mentioned in the argument, as the person making the argument is often unaware of them.
I hope this helps; please post again if you have further questions.
Best,
Lyn
No, the premise of an implication (i.e., the 'A' of "if A then B") is not an assumption. Rather, it is a sufficient condition for the conclusion. An assumption, by contrast, is a proposition, often unstated and even overlooked, that must be true in order for an argument to be valid.
For example, I can state that "if I have no apples, then I cannot make an apple pie," and that statement will be true whether or not I actually have apples. Thus "I have no apples" is the premise of the implication, but it is not an assumption.
If, on the other hand, I state that "If I go outside now without my umbrella, I will get wet," I have once again stated an implication with a premise ("I go outside now without my umbrella") and a conclusion ("I get wet"), but the statement is not necessarily true, as there is an unstated assumption: that it is raining outside. If it is not raining outside, then the implication is false and any reasoning based on it is invalid.
Hidden assumptions of this type often result in flawed reasoning, so you will often see LSAT questions asking you to find such assumptions. You should not expect them to be explicitly mentioned in the argument, as the person making the argument is often unaware of them.
I hope this helps; please post again if you have further questions.
Best,
Lyn
Posted: 03/16/2013 14:33
Lyn,
That definitely helped to clear up my confusion! Thank you so much for your time and patience, I really appreciate you clarifying this problem for me.
Best,
Rachel
That definitely helped to clear up my confusion! Thank you so much for your time and patience, I really appreciate you clarifying this problem for me.
Best,
Rachel
Posted: 03/16/2013 14:43
Rachel, Lyn is our official LSAT contributor and an offline LSAT tutor. If you'd benefit from individual tutoring please consider Lyn. Her rates are quite reasonable and being a PhD in computer science her logic games and logical reasoning are quite impeccable. Don't forget to rate us in the App Store. Thanks.
Posted: 01/17/2014 22:46
I chose D because it seemed a better answer but is E only wrong because it is a less strong assumption? Or is it not considered an assumption at all because previous declarations imply it (there have been sightings and no naturalists have found evidence)? I understand why D is stronger, but given D was a throw away answer (If d was "tigers have large claws) if E could be chosen as an answer or if it's fully wrong due to the definition of an assumption.
Posted: 12/03/2014 08:30
How can we contact Lyn if we are interested in offline lsat tutoring? I'm located in the Georgia area.