This question asks for function of a paragraph.
The third paragraph is talking about the advocates and opponents of abiogenic theory. The author is especially focusing on presenting advocates answering opponents' criticisms, which makes abiogenic theory more convincing.
Now, let's go to the answer choice.
A) “internal contradiction in that opposing view” is not discussed.
B) This is it. Criticism of a theory (No existence of CH4 in mantels) and countervailing evidence (unoxidized carbon + higher pressure offsetting higher temperature) (Correct)
C) No revise of both views provided.
D) The author doesn’t concede to the criticism.
E) “similar theories” are nowhere to be found.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- maria487
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 37
- Joined: October 26th, 2015
Re: Q18
I think A is a tempting answer choice, so I will try to detail why it is incorrect.
The paragraph is essentially a response to criticism against the abiogenic theory. Sentence 1 summarizes the complaint; the remainder of the paragraph is a response to the complaint by proponents of the theory.
(A) says "it presents a view opposed to a theory" = anti-abiogenic view. So far, so good.
The trouble is with the last part-- "points out an internal contradiction in that opposing view." What is this internal contradiction? I immediately thought of the discussion of the diamond formation; the proponents basically say diamonds are formed in the mantle, so it's not that big of a deal for oil to be formed in the mantle (there's already carbon down there). But then, I got to thinking, is this really an internal contradiction within that opposing view? The proponents refute their opponent's theory by saying that carbon's existence in the mantle is possible with an example of another type of carbon in the mantle. Also, it's important to note that sentence 1 is about hydrocarbons whereas the rest of the paragraph talks about unoxidized carbon--a further step away from this being an internal contradiction. So really, I don't think it's safe to say that there is an internal contradiction in the anti-abiogenic view.
Because I thought it would be too overreaching to describe the argument structure in this paragraph to be an "internal contradiction," I chose C which was a lot more straight forward in describing the function of the paragraph: the abiogenic theory is criticized, and the proponents of the theory respond with evidence in favor of the theory.
The paragraph is essentially a response to criticism against the abiogenic theory. Sentence 1 summarizes the complaint; the remainder of the paragraph is a response to the complaint by proponents of the theory.
(A) says "it presents a view opposed to a theory" = anti-abiogenic view. So far, so good.
The trouble is with the last part-- "points out an internal contradiction in that opposing view." What is this internal contradiction? I immediately thought of the discussion of the diamond formation; the proponents basically say diamonds are formed in the mantle, so it's not that big of a deal for oil to be formed in the mantle (there's already carbon down there). But then, I got to thinking, is this really an internal contradiction within that opposing view? The proponents refute their opponent's theory by saying that carbon's existence in the mantle is possible with an example of another type of carbon in the mantle. Also, it's important to note that sentence 1 is about hydrocarbons whereas the rest of the paragraph talks about unoxidized carbon--a further step away from this being an internal contradiction. So really, I don't think it's safe to say that there is an internal contradiction in the anti-abiogenic view.
Because I thought it would be too overreaching to describe the argument structure in this paragraph to be an "internal contradiction," I chose C which was a lot more straight forward in describing the function of the paragraph: the abiogenic theory is criticized, and the proponents of the theory respond with evidence in favor of the theory.
2 posts Page 1 of 1