Q23 - Biologist: Researchers believe that dogs

[chungyesol]

Hello,

At the end of the stimulus where it says "this shows that some dogs are descended from wolves that were domesticated much more recently than others" did not really make sense to me, and I am kind of lost on how to solve this problem at all. I was able to eliminate c, d and e somehow, but chose a, because b talked about "undomesticated wolf ancestors" which was not mentioned in the stimulus. How do I solve a problem like this?

[jolieyang]

wee principles questions... my favorite When I approach principle questions, I try to understand exactly all the components of the argument so I know what the principle need to cover.

In this stimulus, I broke it down to two components - 1) there are breeds of dogs that are more closely related genetically to wolves than other breeds and 2) this results in dogs that are more recently domesticated than other dogs

The conclusion comes from the assumption that because some breeds are more genetically related to wolves, there are breeds that are more recently domesticated. In other words, the more recently domesticated, the more genetic similarity.

A) is wrong because of the word "may." The biologist is adamant that the close genetics means recent domestication. Furthermore, A is an incorrect reversal. It should be that because one breed of dog is more closely related to wolves that this breed was domesticated more recently than others.

B) is correct because it states exactly the argument in the stimulus and addresses components (1) and (2)

undomesticated wolf ancestors just simply means wolves that are not domesticated that are ancestors of these recently domesticated dogs

Does that make sense?

[chike_eze]

This argument was a bit difficult for me to follow in real time. It Made more sense on my second take. If a dog is closely related genetically to wolves then the dog's ancestors (wolves) must have been recently undomestic. Other dogs that are less genetically related to wolves must have less recently undomestic ancestors (wolves).

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree this one is tough to read/understand initially. Luckily, principle questions are incredibly mechanical.

Find your premise, find your conclusion, pick an answer that is structured like this
Prem --> Conc
or like this
~Conc --> ~Prem

BEWARE the ever-present trap answers:
Conc --> Prem
or
~Prem --> ~Conc

Without even understanding what the argument is talking about, we know from "this shows that" that the final sentence is our conclusion and the previous sentence is the premise.

A) is easy to eliminate because it starts with the Conclusion. Trap answer.

B) We see the first half match the premise. We might question whether the confusing wording of the 2nd half matches the conclusion. Hold onto it.

C) Easy elimination because the first half is dealing with the Conclusion.

D) First half matches the premise. 2nd half doesn't seem to match the conclusion. If we need to, hold on to it and compare it vs. (B)

E) this is the ~Prem --> ~Conc trap answer.

So the only two answers that are structurally worth considering are (B) and (D). The first half of each is identical and matches the premise. So we just have to evaluate which choice's second half is a better match for the conclusion.

At this point, the wording of (B), though weird, is clearly a much stronger match for the conclusion than is the wording of (D).

[tommywallach]

Here's my take on this one...

PT 65, S4, Q23 (Principle Support)

(B) is correct.

This is another Principle Support question, so we start by locating the conclusion and supporting premise(s).

We begin with a fact: "researchers believe that dogs are the descendants of domesticated wolves." This sounds like a premise, but we have to find the conclusion before we know for sure. Next, we get another fact: "some breeds of dog are more closely related to wolves than other breeds of dog."

The conclusion has to come next, as we haven’t gotten anything that sounds like an opinion yet. Sure enough, we see the words "this shows that...", a good sign we’re looking at the conclusion: "some dogs are descended from wolves that were domesticated much more recently than others."

Woo! That’s a lot of moving parts. Let’s try to simplify:

Dogs come from wolves + Some dogs closer to wolves than other dogs = Some dogs come from more recently domesticated wolves

Because this is an assumption family question, we know something must be wrong with this argument. Why is it that the genetic similarity between wolves and dogs might not actually relate to how long ago they were domesticated?

What kind of principle would we need? Something that disrupts the connection between how closely related a given dog is to a wolf and how long ago that wolf was domesticated. If that sounds like a mouthful, it is! But look at those hefty answer choices: this one was always going to be a mouthful!

(A) This answer choice is almost as long as the stimulus, and about as confusing. The key is to simplify. Let’s start with the first clause:

One dog breed comes from recently domesticated wolf; other dogs come from less recently domesticated wolf.

So far, so good. Let’s try the next half:

The dog breed from recently domesticated wolf may be more closely related to the wolf than the other dogs.

This seems a lot like what we were searching for! It’s connecting up the genetic similarity of a given dog breed to a wolf with how long ago that wolf was domesticated. Let’s keep it.

(B) This one is a lot simpler than (A). It says that if a dog is more closely related to a wolf, it has more recent undomesticated wolf ancestors. That’s also what we were looking for, and worded a lot more simply, too. We’ll have to keep it.

(C) Whether or not this answer choice is true, it fails to close the gap between how long ago a given wolf breed was domesticated and how similar the resultant dog breed is to that kind of wolf. All it says is that dogs are closer to some other breeds of dogs than they are to the wolves from which they descend.

(D) Again, this answer choice fails to discuss the issue of when a given wolf was domesticated. In fact, it leaves out domestication entirely! Instead, it asks us to compare two breeds of dogs to a wolf, and determine the genetic closeness of the two breeds of dogs thereby. This would not help us reach our conclusion.

(E) This answer choice mentions domestication and time, but it fails to discuss what it means in terms of when a given wolf was domesticated. All it says is that two closely related breeds of dogs come from wolves that were domesticated long ago. But we want to know if we can use a given breed’s similarity to wolves to work out when the wolves in question were domesticated. Long ago is way too general.

It comes down to (A) and (B). Let’s look at them one more time.

(A) Looking back, we notice the word "may" in the final clause. Is the conclusion of our actual argument equally weak? "This shows that some dogs are descended from wolves that were domesticated much more recently than others." Looks like our conclusion is pretty definitive; a principle that cites a possible connection between time of domestication and genetic closeness wouldn’t be enough.

It’s worth keeping in mind that the LSAT is nicer than this; the simple addition of one slightly weak word won’t typically be the lynchpin of the whole question. It turns out that (A) makes another mistake. We want the similarity in genetics to lead to a conclusion about when domestication happened. This answer actually uses when domestication happened to come to a conclusion about genetic similarity. That’s a logical reversal that we aren’t allowed to make.

(B) This one is nice and definitive, and it doesn’t reverse the logic.

[sumukh09]

Hi,

I'm having trouble digesting the second half of answer choice B). More specifically, "then the former breed of dog has more recent undomesticated wolf ancestors than the latter breed has." This is worded in a confusing way probably to dissuade the test taker from selecting this answer choice -- could someone provide more clarification on what this half of the statement means exactly? Thanks!

[nicholasasquith]

B is hard to understand if you don't pick up on the researcher's belief in the first line.

The argument goes like this:
(P)Researchers believe all dogs descended from domesticated wolves.
(P)Recently we've discovered certain dogs are genetically closer to wolves than dogs.
(C) We're taking this to mean those dogs are more closely related to more recently domesticated wolves than other dogs.

So going back to B, if we insert it into this argument, we're guaranteed that those dogs have more recent undomesticated wolf ancestors than other dogs.

Well, if we know that all dogs had to have come from domesticated wolves, and we know these dogs' lineage was from more recently undomesticated wolves, we also have to conclude now that those undomesticated wolves had to have first become domesticated to give rise to these type of dogs.

And that justifies our conclusion. I think it is a bit presumptuous that we have to assume what the researchers believe is in fact true. But considering there is no other AC in the list that comes close, and this is only an "underlying principle" question, I guess it works.

[tommywallach]

Hey Sumukh,

I think Nicholas nailed this here, to be honest. This is a very complex argument, but I WOULD NOT say that (B) is confusingly worded in order to dissuade you from picking it. (B) is actually no worse than the other answer choices (answer choice (A) is longer, and just as confusing). Question 23 is often very hard (24-26 tend to taper off), so it's not surprising. Let me know if my/Nicholas' explanation still aren't enough; we can keep trying!

-t

[ying_yingjj]

I was thrown off by the word "undomesticated" in (B). Otherwise I would have chosen B as the correct answer.

But Nicolas really explained it so clear.

(C) is just not a principle.

(D) is repeating itself.

[rachellewrx]

I was thrown off by the word "undomesticated" in (B). Otherwise I would have chosen B as the correct answer.

But Nicolas really explained it so clear.

(C) is just not a principle.

(D) is repeating itself.

I respectfully disagree.

D is not repeating itself. The assumption in D is not mentioned anywhere in the stimulus, and the conclusion is somewhat similar to the premise in the stimulus . The wording in D is very tricky.

And Patrick's method is really helpful. It has made the world a better place.