Q13

[StephanieK821]

I was torn between answer choice "D" and "B" but ultimately and unfortunately chose "B". Could someone explain why "D" is the better answer?

[RuthS478]

Hi! Could a teacher reply to the question above? Thanks!

[Laura Damone]

What a tough one! Sorry for the delayed response here. A lot was slipping through the cracks in April and it seems the LSAT Forums was no exception.

Anywho....

When I did this question the first time I was also down to B and D. Since this is a structure question, my contenders are bound to be similar. That means, it's the difference(s) that will make one right and the other wrong.

So what are the differences between B and D? For one, B starts with the specific observations upfront whereas D opens with the hypothesis. Going back to P1, I definitely see one specific observation (the bones in the pit were 90% horse) but I also see the hypothesis, loud and clear in the first sentence: she may have found the first evidence of domesticated horses. That plants me firmly in favor of D.

The other big difference is that B closes with a general conclusion, whereas D closes with the evidence. Essentially, the two answers describe the opposite argument structure. B describes Evidence then Conclusion, while D describes Conclusion then Evidence. Which sounds more like the passage? D again. P4 is all about giving us more data to support the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[JenniferK632]

Would you be able to explain why A is wrong here? I thought a set of findings is described (intro, Olsen's facts) and various explanations of the findings are evaluated (riding horses? meat? milk?) was pretty apt.

What a tough one! Sorry for the delayed response here. A lot was slipping through the cracks in April and it seems the LSAT Forums was no exception.

Anywho....

When I did this question the first time I was also down to B and D. Since this is a structure question, my contenders are bound to be similar. That means, it's the difference(s) that will make one right and the other wrong.

So what are the differences between B and D? For one, B starts with the specific observations upfront whereas D opens with the hypothesis. Going back to P1, I definitely see one specific observation (the bones in the pit were 90% horse) but I also see the hypothesis, loud and clear in the first sentence: she may have found the first evidence of domesticated horses. That plants me firmly in favor of D.

The other big difference is that B closes with a general conclusion, whereas D closes with the evidence. Essentially, the two answers describe the opposite argument structure. B describes Evidence then Conclusion, while D describes Conclusion then Evidence. Which sounds more like the passage? D again. P4 is all about giving us more data to support the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[Laura Damone]

Sure thing!

I'd say that there is only one finding, not a set of findings, described in the first paragraph: bones in the pit were 90% horse. This is A's fatal flaw.

And even though P2 and P3 do rule out the hunting of horses as a method of supporting the claim that they were likely ridden, that's a little different than evaluating various explanations. There is a distinct goal of P2 and P3: argue for the claim that the horses were ridden. In true LSAT fashion, they meet that goal by ruling out alternative explanations. If a correct answer were to mention different possible explanations, it would do so in that way.

Hope this helps!

[GolddiggerF208]

I went to A but after blind review saw there are no "findings are evaluated." Basically, the author is describing Olsen's theory without explicit evaluation. B is close but, as others mentioned, there is no "a set of observations" and the general conclusion stands at the early stage instead of later paragraphs. D is much precise by pointing out the outline of the hypothesis (the bones show the domesticated horses or the victims of wild ones) followed by the reasoning favoring the domesticated horse theory.