Q17 - Some classes of animal

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It should be pointed out that the question stem could be interpreted in two ways. In many cases it would be interpreted as a necessary assumption question in that the argument takes something for granted. The first three answer choices all read like necessary assumption answer choices. The last two answer choices read more like identify the flaw answer choices. Since the correct answer is (E), the question should be labeled an identify the flaw question.

The argument is very simple. It claims that because ants are very successful, that each species of ant is also successful. You cannot assume that what is true of a group in general will be true of each of the members of that group.

For example, just because Mrs. Jones’ classroom is the highest performing class in the school, doesn’t mean that Sarah, who is in Mrs. Jones’ classroom is also high-performing. So, answer choice (E) should stand out. The only thing that is difficult is making the transition into abstract descriptions.

(A) is incorrect. The argument assumes that those areas are ecosystems, but not that they’re geographically isolated.
(B) is incorrect. The argument never assumes that ants are unlike most other insects.
(C) is also not true. The argument never says that a class of animal must exist either everywhere or nowhere. A healthy portion of viable ecosystems will do.
(D) sounds interesting. But the relationship is backwards.
(E) is correct. The argument does assume that what is true of the group is true of each member of the group.

[ebrickm2]

I simply thought that the language, it takes for granted= they assume to not to be true.

so that A would make sense, or at least maybe a little bit, because if they were isolated it is possible that the argument could be looking over the fact that these areas are in fact quite isolated.

who knows.

[alinanny]

My problem with this question was that I totally missed the NO SPICIES OF ANT. That is why none of the answer choices made sense.
Thanks for the explanation. I have to learn how to read more carefully!

[jamiejames]

I read it as "ants are the most successful, such as ants living in the Arctic Circle to Tierra, hence no species of ant is threatened." so it went from the constituent elements to the whole, as opposed to the other way around, that's why I chose D.

[timmydoeslsat]

I read it as "ants are the most successful, such as ants living in the Arctic Circle to Tierra, hence no species of ant is threatened." so it went from the constituent elements to the whole, as opposed to the other way around, that's why I chose D.

That is a matter of incorrectly interpreting the sentence. It is stated as fact insects are a class of animal that is of the kind that is virtually in every part of the world. It is also stated as fact that ants are the most successful of insects. We are then given an example of the range of environments where they can be found.

It is then concluded that no species of ant is threatened.

Now it is true that ants in general are not threatened. But to say that no species of ants is not threatened is committing the flaw of attributing characteristics found in a group to members of a group.

[jamiejames]

I read it as "ants are the most successful, such as ants living in the Arctic Circle to Tierra, hence no species of ant is threatened." so it went from the constituent elements to the whole, as opposed to the other way around, that's why I chose D.

That is a matter of incorrectly interpreting the sentence. It is stated as fact insects are a class of animal that is of the kind that is virtually in every part of the world. It is also stated as fact that ants are the most successful of insects. We are then given an example of the range of environments where they can be found.

It is then concluded that no species of ant is threatened.

Now it is true that ants in general are not threatened. But to say that no species of ants is not threatened is committing the flaw of attributing characteristics found in a group to members of a group.

ah, so the key to this question is discerning between what is said as fact, and what is taken from those facts? that makes sense, thank you for the explanation

[timmydoeslsat]

I read it as "ants are the most successful, such as ants living in the Arctic Circle to Tierra, hence no species of ant is threatened." so it went from the constituent elements to the whole, as opposed to the other way around, that's why I chose D.

That is a matter of incorrectly interpreting the sentence. It is stated as fact insects are a class of animal that is of the kind that is virtually in every part of the world. It is also stated as fact that ants are the most successful of insects. We are then given an example of the range of environments where they can be found.

It is then concluded that no species of ant is threatened.

Now it is true that ants in general are not threatened. But to say that no species of ants is not threatened is committing the flaw of attributing characteristics found in a group to members of a group.

ah, so the key to this question is discerning between what is said as fact, and what is taken from those facts? that makes sense, thank you for the explanation

When you have stimulus sets where there is no speaker, such as paleontologist or entomologist, then what is stated in the premises is to be taken as true. It is the conclusion derived from these premises that is not to be taken as fact. We must determine whether the evidence will necessarily lead to that conclusion. And in this case it does not due to it attributing parts from whole to a constituent part.

[frenchvanillabosco]

The question only talks about insects being successful. Should we make the connection that being successful = not threatened?
Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes we should.

It's annoying, but you just have to play along with how the author is talking/thinking.

I know that in a vacuum that sounds like a weird binary set of antonyms ... "the opposite of 'successful' is 'threatened'?"

But we're using the context of the first sentence, which contrasts animals who are "successful" with animals who are "isolated thereby threatened".

There can only be a contrast in that sentence if "successful" and "threatened" are different things.

So within the author's thinking, ants fall into the first bucket of "successful" classes of animals, not the second bucket of "isolated and threatened" classes of animals.

That's how the author makes his final erroneous leap to "therefore no species of ant is threatened".

[jewels0602]

It should be pointed out that the question stem could be interpreted in two ways. In many cases it would be interpreted as a necessary assumption question in that the argument takes something for granted. The first three answer choices all read like necessary assumption answer choices. The last two answer choices read more like identify the flaw answer choices. Since the correct answer is (E), the question should be labeled an identify the flaw question.

The argument is very simple. It claims that because ants are very successful, that each species of ant is also successful. You cannot assume that what is true of a group in general will be true of each of the members of that group.

For example, just because Mrs. Jones’ classroom is the highest performing class in the school, doesn’t mean that Sarah, who is in Mrs. Jones’ classroom is also high-performing. So, answer choice (E) should stand out. The only thing that is difficult is making the transition into abstract descriptions.

(A) is incorrect. The argument assumes that those areas are ecosystems, but not that they’re geographically isolated.
(B) is incorrect. The argument never assumes that ants are unlike most other insects.
(C) is also not true. The argument never says that a class of animal must exist either everywhere or nowhere. A healthy portion of viable ecosystems will do.
(D) sounds interesting. But the relationship is backwards.
(E) is correct. The argument does assume that what is true of the group is true of each member of the group.

The first paragraph was very enlightening so thank you for that. I chose A and I am very sure it was because I looked at it from a necessary POV.

[hstler1]

It should be pointed out that the question stem could be interpreted in two ways. In many cases it would be interpreted as a necessary assumption question in that the argument takes something for granted. The first three answer choices all read like necessary assumption answer choices. The last two answer choices read more like identify the flaw answer choices. Since the correct answer is (E), the question should be labeled an identify the flaw question.

The argument is very simple. It claims that because ants are very successful, that each species of ant is also successful. You cannot assume that what is true of a group in general will be true of each of the members of that group.

For example, just because Mrs. Jones’ classroom is the highest performing class in the school, doesn’t mean that Sarah, who is in Mrs. Jones’ classroom is also high-performing. So, answer choice (E) should stand out. The only thing that is difficult is making the transition into abstract descriptions.

(A) is incorrect. The argument assumes that those areas are ecosystems, but not that they’re geographically isolated.
(B) is incorrect. The argument never assumes that ants are unlike most other insects.
(C) is also not true. The argument never says that a class of animal must exist either everywhere or nowhere. A healthy portion of viable ecosystems will do.
(D) sounds interesting. But the relationship is backwards.
(E) is correct. The argument does assume that what is true of the group is true of each member of the group.

Based on the myriad of flaw questions presented this question is most certainly more of a FLAW question than anything else. "Taking for granted" and simply stating that the argument is "flawed" is enough to extrapolate this fact, in my opinion.

[LukeM22]

Was hoping to get some feedback on my thought process:

The flaw that actually stood out to me was that "inhabiting only small niches in geographic isolated areas..." is not necessary to becoming threatened, and, as such, its absence isn't sufficient grounds to guarantee not being threatened. However, this specific flaw wasn't in the answer choices (C was the closest one, but not quite; it was "only" rather than "necessary"), so I guess we have to assume the absence of being isolated does preclude being threatened. Now, if this is indeed the case, and if ants, as a class, are not-threatened because no ants exist on these little areas, then I don't see how one can't conclude that on a species level, ants still are safe. Wouldn't no ants within a class existing on geographically isolated areas mean that no ants within the subsidiary species that constitute the whole class also do not exist on geographically isolated areas?

I guess an analogy I would use is: "The country of Britain is safe, because no one within Britain owns guns. Therefore, people in London are safe, because no one owns guns" . There would certainly be a flaw in this argument-- that not banning guns doesn't ensure safety-- but it certainly wouldn't be "we can't conclude no one in London has guns just because we know everyone in Britain doesn't."

Thank you for the help,

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems like you're doing a lot of premise-fighting, rather than doing our actual task in Assumption Family questions:
ACCEPT the evidence, BUT ARGUE AGAINST the conclusion.

Once we diagnose the argument core, we should be trying to solve this riddle,
GIVEN THAT insects are a successful (non-threatened) class of animal
and GIVEN THAT ants are the most successful insect,
HOW CAN WE ARGUE that at least one species of ant IS threatened?


It looks like you're getting wrapped up in worrying about whether being widespread vs. relegated to niches tells us anything definitive about threatened/non-threatened status.

The argument does indicate that being relegated to niches can lead to being threatened ("thereby become threatened"). But it doesn't say that being relegated to niches GUARANTEES that you'll be threatened. It doesn't say that being widespread GUARANTEES you'll be non-threatened.

The first sentence isn't conditional logic. It's not even a binary. It's just saying, "Some animals are so successful that they can live anywhere. Other animals can only live in certain pockets and that contributes to their endangered status."

The argument is kinda like this.
"Hoover High School is the best school in the district, and Ms. Jackson's class is the most successful class within Hoover High. Thus, no student in Ms. Jackson's class has bad grades."