LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- Mab6q
-
Thanks Received: 31
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 290
- Joined: June 30th, 2013
Q14
I must say that I am very upset about this question because D doesn't seem to be right. Possible alternative explanations to what??? There is one explanation and then we have a alternative explanation. How can D be right!?! I felt C was better because the author was showing how weak the method used by the research team was by showing flaws in their evidence.
"Just keep swimming"
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q14
Hi Mab6q,
Sorry you're upset! (D) is indeed the correct answer here :-/
The author confronts a mystery: why’d the dolphins die off? The scientists say brevetoxin poising. The author however, say’s "that’s not convincing!" The author offers an "alternative hypothesis:" pollutants caused the dolphin deaths (line 52).
(D) is supported. The two explanations are "alternatives" to one another. The author "assesses" each of these two explanations. She concedes that brevetoxin may have contributed to the dolphin deaths, but concludes that pollutants were the true culprit. This answer choice captures the fullness of the passage, in which the author carefully evaluates BOTH explanations.
(C) is out of scope. The author doesn’t critique the research team’s methodology (how they did the study); she critiques the team’s conclusion.
(A) is too narrow. The author notes that the infection killed the dolphins (lines 39-40) but wants to know what made the dolphins susceptible to such infections. Brevetoxin? Pollutants?
(B) is unsupported. Process? This answer choice is also narrow"”the author isn’t merely concerned with dolphin illness; she’s concerned with the cause of the illness.
(E) is unsupported. The author discusses marine pollutants in general. She doesn’t compare individual pollutants to one another.
A process of elimination can be really helpful on these main point questions. Look out for the subtle detail shifts that make answer choices wrong, like the emphasis on "methodology" in (C).
--Rina
Sorry you're upset! (D) is indeed the correct answer here :-/
The author confronts a mystery: why’d the dolphins die off? The scientists say brevetoxin poising. The author however, say’s "that’s not convincing!" The author offers an "alternative hypothesis:" pollutants caused the dolphin deaths (line 52).
(D) is supported. The two explanations are "alternatives" to one another. The author "assesses" each of these two explanations. She concedes that brevetoxin may have contributed to the dolphin deaths, but concludes that pollutants were the true culprit. This answer choice captures the fullness of the passage, in which the author carefully evaluates BOTH explanations.
(C) is out of scope. The author doesn’t critique the research team’s methodology (how they did the study); she critiques the team’s conclusion.
(A) is too narrow. The author notes that the infection killed the dolphins (lines 39-40) but wants to know what made the dolphins susceptible to such infections. Brevetoxin? Pollutants?
(B) is unsupported. Process? This answer choice is also narrow"”the author isn’t merely concerned with dolphin illness; she’s concerned with the cause of the illness.
(E) is unsupported. The author discusses marine pollutants in general. She doesn’t compare individual pollutants to one another.
A process of elimination can be really helpful on these main point questions. Look out for the subtle detail shifts that make answer choices wrong, like the emphasis on "methodology" in (C).
--Rina
2 posts Page 1 of 1