Q22 - Scientists once believed that the oversized

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
A mini T-Rex-looking dinosaur was found. Therefore, the T. rex's weird proportions can't have developed to accommodate the dino's size.

Answer Anticipation:
Since the argument relies on the two dinosaurs being similar, questions that would elicit responses allow us to compare the two would be most helpful.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. While this answer would speak to a similarity between the two dinosaurs, the body size wasn't a relevant factor in the argument. Also, "the same" is a bit too extreme—if it were similar, the argument might still hold weight.

(B) Bingo. If the new dinosaur was a baby, then it could grow to be T. rex-sized, and the initial hypothesis might stand. If it was fully grown, then the argument is a good one and the initial hypothesis should be rejected.

(C) Out of scope. Other, more massive dinosaurs are irrelevant to whether this comparison tells us something about the T. rex.

(D) Out of scope. The relationship between the two species doesn't determine the physics and biology of how things work.

(E) That'd be a sight to see! But, again, they could prey on different animals but still have the same body-proportion issues.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Arguments that rely on comparisons generally have answers that provide information about similarities/differences. However, be careful that you're picking an answer with a relevant similarity or difference

#officialexplanation

[b.lin.22.13]

I didn't make the assumption that the skeleton was a T-rex and I think that's why I eliminated B. I feel like on other types of questions it would be dangerous to make this kind of assumption? Or is there enough in the argument to safely assume that the skeleton can be interpreted as a mini T-rex?

[ohthatpatrick]

We don't know whether it was T-rex or not from the stim.

If anything, I'd say we know it isn't a T-rex, because they identify it as "an earlier dinosaur".

That sounds to me like they're implying, "an earlier species", and therefore, NOT T-Rex.

It doesn't really make a difference whether it's T-Rex or not, for how (B) is designed to work.

I think you just saw that Matt alluded to the specimen as a "mini T-Rex" in his prephrase. He didn't mean that literally.

In his explanation for (B), he's saying the dino could grow to be "T-Rex sized".

[andrewgong01]

This was my approach: I am not sure if I took it a step too much in the way I pre-phased it because I was less concerned with similarity and more concerned with finding something that allows us to also conclude why the old theory is right or wrong.

My pre-phase for this question was a bit longer and beyond Matt's. I said that we need to establish these are similar but, more importantly, the correct choice must tell us why this new species can be used to reject or accept the old hypothesis because at the end of the day the conclusion was rejecting a prior theory and even if we say these are similar or not similar it still does not allow us to some how conclude why the old theory is wrong.

For "A" I actually viewed it as in scope and tell us even more about the similarity based of the ratio (however, I think this is a premise booster in that we already know that the new dinosaur was similar in body characteristics with the T-Rex). Regardless of wether or not the new info in A makes it more plausible that it is a fair comparison it says nothing on why we should reject the old theory or accept the new theory. In other words, we only said they are similar but why does that mean one of them is "correct"?

For "B" it does not establish similarity (but the premises I think establish it already) but does shed light into why we should accept or reject the old theory because in answering the question it may hint at the fact that we have a "bias" sample where this is a baby.

For "D" similarity is established but says nothing on why we should reject the old theory. If anything, it seems to deepen the mystery because these are two really similar animals but why the difference? Choice "B" could answer the difference: one was a toddler and the other was an adult.

[bswise2]

T-Rexes have 3 characteristics identified in the stimulus: 1) Oversized head; 2) Long hind legs; 3) Tiny forelimbs.

So what does this mean? What information can we get from this? Well, we can only get what is stated. Meaning, we have no idea what criteria is needed to constitute an “oversized head” from the stimulus alone. We don’t know that having an oversized head has anything to do with the proportion of the head to the body (without appealing to outside information). The relevant question when considering A is– what constitutes an “oversized head”? It could be that scientists call any creature’s head that is larger than x inches oversized. Or what if scientists call any head who is twice as big as the creature’s brain an “oversized head”? The point is, to assume that a head is oversized because of it’s proportion to the creature’s body is an unwarranted assumption. Therefore, in order for A to be a relevant question in evaluating this argument, we need to first ask “Does knowing the proportion of the creature’s head to it’s body suffice in determining whether the head is oversized?”

If a head is called “oversized” because it surpasses a previously established threshold of “normal sized heads” (x inches) that applies universally to the entire animal kingdom, then knowing the answer to the question in A would be irrelevant.

[seychelles1718]

Isn't this argument anti-causal?
If this question were a Flaw/Weaken Q instead of Evaluate Q, would we weaken this by arguing that the aim/purpose of accommodating the size and weight of T-rex caused the development its body proportions?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Yep, you are correct! The argument is anti-causal - the conclusion rejections a claim of causation by rejecting a proposed explanation for how a particular phenomenon came about.

Now, as for how things would change with different question types, let's be careful about defining the tasks. Flaw and Weaken questions are two very different question types. A flaw question asks us to point out an error in the logic of the argument, either by describing the error type or by describing an assumption made in the argument (as unwarranted assumptions are always flaws).

A weaken, on the other hand, asks us to find some new piece of information that, if true, would make the argument less likely to work. And, to be clear, an evaluate question looks for a question that could potentially either strengthen or weaken the argument, depending on how that question were answered.

So, at the end of the day, to weaken an anti-causal argument we'll also be strengthening the denied causal argument. Here, we'd end up strengthening the idea that the size/weight of the T-rex caused the features. But we can't always do that by just coming right out and saying, directly, that the causation exists. Why not? Because the causal claim/denial is the conclusion - and we don't weaken conclusions by just stating "that conclusion is wrong." Instead, one way we weaken conclusions is by showing that the evidence offered isn't useful - we neutralize the premises.

In this argument, a weakener would need to suggest that the size/weight could still be the cause of the features in spite of the weird tiny T-rex critter. My weakener is going to need to address that little guy.

Riffing off the correct answer here, a GREAT weakener would be:

The specimen was actually a baby of its species.

If the specimen is a baby, then it doesn't really tell us anything useful about the species as a whole. That makes it impossible to say whether in that species those characteristics could be caused by size/weight issues. As a result, it wouldn't be a useful 'counterexample' to the causation claim in the first sentence.

Any new bit of information that made this specimen less relevant for making causal determinations would weaken.

Does that help a bit?

[seychelles1718]

Thank you so much, christine.defenbaugh!!!

[LolaC289]

This question totally caught me off guard!! I eliminated (B) on my first pass and never looked back on it. Now I do think it makes some sense, pointing out that the time giving for the specimen is not enough for its full development. However, I don't know why (D) is wrong.

The argument goes like this:

Conclusion: The Tyrannosaurus rex features (T features) are NOT developed in order to accommodate the great size and weight of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Premise: A recent discovered skeleton of an earlier dinosaur has the same T features, but doesn't have the same size and weight of the T's.

A gap I saw immediately is while the conclusion is about Tyrannosaurus, the premise offered is another dinosaur kind ("an earlier dinosaur"). Even if this earlier dinosaur, let's call it the Bobo dinosaur, doesn't do what T dinosaur do, how does it affect the theory exclusively about T dinosaur?

(D) addresses this point. IF this Bobo dinosaur doesn't even relate to the T dinosaur, its conditions is a whole other story and has nothing to do with T and can't be used to negate the theory about T's development; on the other hand, IF they are related, then maybe this specimen means something and the conclusion would be more believable.

Am I missing something here? ( I am thinking maybe my interpretation of the conclusion is inaccurate. Maybe it should not be interpreted as "the T features are NOT developed for T", but "it doesn't have to be T's level of size and weight to have those T features " ? )

[TingR721]

This question totally caught me off guard!! I eliminated (B) on my first pass and never looked back on it. Now I do think it makes some sense, pointing out that the time giving for the specimen is not enough for its full development. However, I don't know why (D) is wrong.

The argument goes like this:

Conclusion: The Tyrannosaurus rex features (T features) are NOT developed in order to accommodate the great size and weight of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Premise: A recent discovered skeleton of an earlier dinosaur has the same T features, but doesn't have the same size and weight of the T's.

A gap I saw immediately is while the conclusion is about Tyrannosaurus, the premise offered is another dinosaur kind ("an earlier dinosaur"). Even if this earlier dinosaur, let's call it the Bobo dinosaur, doesn't do what T dinosaur do, how does it affect the theory exclusively about T dinosaur?

(D) addresses this point. IF this Bobo dinosaur doesn't even relate to the T dinosaur, its conditions is a whole other story and has nothing to do with T and can't be used to negate the theory about T's development; on the other hand, IF they are related, then maybe this specimen means something and the conclusion would be more believable.

Am I missing something here? ( I am thinking maybe my interpretation of the conclusion is inaccurate. Maybe it should not be interpreted as "the T features are NOT developed for T", but "it doesn't have to be T's level of size and weight to have those T features " ? )

I have the same trouble figuring out why D is incorrect. I believe that if the dinosaur is not related to T. rex, it could not be used as evidence to support the conclusion.

In addition, I think A is also a possible answer because even if the dinosaur does not have similar size and weight of T. rex, but its head is also oversized comparing with its own body size, doesn't that mean a creature similar to T. rex has a similar body structure as T. rex? Can't that information be useful to the conclusion?

I will really appreciate some help about A and D. Thanks!

[JeremyK460]

I have the same trouble figuring out why D is incorrect. I believe that if the dinosaur is not related to T. rex, it could not be used as evidence to support the conclusion.

In addition, I think A is also a possible answer because even if the dinosaur does not have similar size and weight of T. rex, but its head is also oversized comparing with its own body size, doesn't that mean a creature similar to T. rex has a similar body structure as T. rex? Can't that information be useful to the conclusion?

I will really appreciate some help about A and D. Thanks!

the stimulus is about the FEATURES of a T-Rex.
the stimulus is about the features’ biological motivation in regards to the way they developed

imagine aliens were excavating our fossils:

Alien 1: the denseness/hardness of the human male skull we found developed in order to withstand all the coconuts that fell onto them
Alien 2: no way. we just found the skull of a human male that was half the size

which answer sounds better?

Alien 1: was it a female skull?
Alien 1: was it a baby human skull?