Q25 - Almost all microbe species live

[rdown2b]

I understand that one must have Complete Knowledge to Cultivate but for some reason I misdiagramed and thought C was an incorrect negation and picked D but I understand why its C but can someone disprove D for me?

[timmydoeslsat]

The stimulus core can be seen as follows: [ ~ = negation]

Most microbe species live in dense area where they all need and depend on each other live ---> ~ Cultivate species in isolation

-----------> THEREFORE....

Microbiologists lack complete knowledge lack complete knowledge of most microbe species.

Do those premises entail that conclusion?

No!

Microbiologist is not even mentioned in the premises! We need something to like microbiologists and their knowledge. The knowledge aspect is missing. This is a sufficient assumption question.

We need something to plug in there that will make the conclusion 100% valid.

As you stated C does just that, and here is how. (I will get to choice D after this explanation!)

Choice C states: No microbiologist can have complete knowledge of any species of any organism unless that microbiologist can cultivate that species in isolation.

Choice C translated into a conditional:

Microbiologist can have complete knowledge of any species of any organism ---> microbiologist can cultivate that species in isolation

The contrapositive of this is:

~Microbiologist can cultivate that species in isolation ---> ~Microbiologist can have complete knowledge of any species of any organism

We can hook this into the stimulus to validly lead to Microbiologists lack complete knowledge because we know that we cannot cultivate those microbe species. That was given to us in the stimulus. We now have this sufficient assumption being stated that can connect us from this concept to the concept stated in the conclusion.

D) At some microbiologists lack complete knowledge of any microbe species that live in dense, interdependent communities.

If we were to plug this into our argument core, would it entail the conclusion based upon our premises? No!

We want to know WHY they lack complete knowledge. We go from "well we can't cultivate them in isolation, therefore microbiologists can't have complete knowledge" The leap that argument needs bridged is the idea of isolation and knowledge with microbiologists. The fact that there are some microbiologists that lack complete knowledge of it does not help bridge our gap to validate the conclusion.

[sr]

I got this one right - I understand why C is right. But I also thought A, and E were both necessary to be assumed as well.

A) If it were possible for microbiologists to recreate whatever the other species did for the community without the other species being present, then they would be able to isolate one species? Because the argument states that they cannot isolate one species because the other species are NECESSARY. However it is only assumed that they are necessary (and this answer choice is the necessary assumption).

E) This also needs to be assumed. If this was negated, the whole argument would fall apart because it would be possible to isolate one species.

I know that this question is asking for a sufficient assumption. However answer choice C cannot be sufficient to complete the argument if the argument. If C were stated in the argument, the conclusion would still not be properly formed (because there are huge holes in the argument because 'A' and 'E' are not stated.)

[nflamel69]

I disagree with the necessity of A. what if there are other reasons that they cannot cultivate the species that's not the one listed? Then that means A is not necessary. E is not necessary because of the words survive outside of such a community. I can't find a clear reason how to express it for E, if someone else can do it, it would be of a great help

[daniel]

I disagree with the necessity of A. what if there are other reasons that they cannot cultivate the species that's not the one listed? Then that means A is not necessary. E is not necessary because of the words survive outside of such a community. I can't find a clear reason how to express it for E, if someone else can do it, it would be of a great help

E) The way I see it, "survive outside such a community" and "cultivate in isolation" are functionally equivalent terms, and I don't think there is much of a gap between these two concepts. Since the stimulus tells us this is impossible, I see this answer choice as a premise booster. Hence, it is not an assumption.

A) I saw this as another premise booster. The argument states that it is currently impossible to cultivate these microbes in isolation. This answer choice supports the premise by providing one reason why it may be impossible.

[ttunden]

I got this one right - I understand why C is right. But I also thought A, and E were both necessary to be assumed as well.

A) If it were possible for microbiologists to recreate whatever the other species did for the community without the other species being present, then they would be able to isolate one species? Because the argument states that they cannot isolate one species because the other species are NECESSARY. However it is only assumed that they are necessary (and this answer choice is the necessary assumption).

E) This also needs to be assumed. If this was negated, the whole argument would fall apart because it would be possible to isolate one species.

I know that this question is asking for a sufficient assumption. However answer choice C cannot be sufficient to complete the argument if the argument. If C were stated in the argument, the conclusion would still not be properly formed (because there are huge holes in the argument because 'A' and 'E' are not stated.)

Alrighty then, guess since no one else is helping I'll have to help. I'm more than happy to

So, we have a sufficient assumption question here, and it has to allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. What is our conclusion? well its the last sentence.

Why is it not A? Because this will not enable our conclusion to be properly drawn. Ok, so its impossible for microbio to reproduce system. so what. This will not allow us to say they lack complete knowledge of most microbe species. This may help a little with the Intermediate conclusion but not with our main conclusion. This doesn't allow us to conclude they lack complete knowledge. We are looking for an answer choice that allows us to make that statement. When doing sufficient assumption questions, focus on the conclusion. There is a big scope shift going on here in the argument, talking about communities of microbes and then jumping to microbiologist lacking complete knowledge.

Why is it not E?
similar reasons to why it isn't A. Moreso helps the intermediate conclusion but does not allow us to properly draw the main conclusion. We really have to focus on the main conclusion here for this question. E won't help us derive that conclusion. It just helps out the intermediate conclusion, which on its own has adequate support already.

Eliminate

[blairped]

HELP!!!!!!!!

I don't quite understand how Answer (C) can be translated as

"Microbiologist can have complete knowledge of any species of organism ---> Microbiologist can cultivate that species in isolation."

when Answer (C) has UNLESS and NO conditional indicators.

What I know is:

-NO indicator makes you negate the necessary condition.
-UNLESS indicator makes you negate sufficient condition.

According to this translation, UNLESS indicator rule was used, not NO indicator.

Does this happen whenever there is both UNLESS and NO indicator? Is UNLESS rule superior to NO rule or something?

[rinagoldfield]

Hi All,

Great discussion. Hard question. I share some of the same doubts about (C) as SR abov

Here’re my 2 cents:

Argument core:
Microbes live interdependently --> it is impossible to cultivate microbes in isolation --> microbiologists lack complete knowledge of microbes

The conclusion introduces a new term/ concept, “complete knowledge.” Since this is a sufficient assumption question, our right answer choice MUST have that term in it.

****this is true for all sufficient assumption questions. Right answers must contain new terms from the conclusion!!!****

Only (C) and (D) discuss complete knowledge.

(D) talks about “some” microbiologists, but we need to know about microbiologists in general. (D) is thus necessary, but not sufficient.

(C) is a conditional statement, and so offers a general guarantee. “Unless” means “if not;” we can translate (C) as:
No ability to cultivate in isolation --> No complete knowledge.

This exactly bridges the intermediate to the final conclusion. (C) is correct.

(A) and (E) are necessary bridges between the initial premise and the intermediate conclusion. They do not, however, connect to the final conclusion, as they lack any discussion of “complete knowledge.”

(B) talks about what results IF XYZ cannot be reproduced, but the argument does not tell us WHETHER XYZ and can be reproduced. Therefore (B) does not quite link anything.

--Rina

[asafezrati]

So the conclusion can be properly drawn even if the intermediary conclusion isn't linked to its supporting premise?
and the argument as a whole?

[rinagoldfield]

Hey asaferzati – I’d argue this isn’t a totally perfect sufficient assumption for the reason you say – it links the intermediate conclusion to the final conclusion. However, it’s the best of the answer choices.

[AaronR315]

Doesn't answer C go a little too far in saying that "any species of organism"? I understand we are dealing with a rather pure conditional statement setup, so those types tend to not be concerned as much with generalizations. But, to go from "one group of creatures" that microbiologist are having a difficult time with understanding based on the facts to saying they cannot as well understand "all creatures" because of the same facts given, well that seems like a stretch to me. The second sentence in the stimulus even mentions in conditional terms "currently impossible to cultivate any one SUCH SPECIES in isolation. That would be referring solely to microbe species, correct? The third and final sentence then goes on to say that now microbiologist lack this knowledge of "most microbe species" again in conditional terms. It does not mention "any species of organisms". Granted, I know how Justify questions work which would throw out what I thought were the best answers, A and B, but I as usual forget this rule about new material in the conclusion. Even still, if I had remembered that important detail, I feel I would of been still stumped due to my reasoning above and decided once to veer off course from regular LSAT trends and not answer with C but just hope for the best and go with one of my previous answers.

[ohthatpatrick]

There's no such thing as an answer being TOO STRONG on
SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION
STRENGTHEN
WEAKEN
EXPLAIN (PARADOX)
PRINCIPLE-STRENGTHEN

Since this is Sufficient Assumption, we could never eliminate an answer choice because it's too strongly worded.

(It sounds like you're remembering advice you heard about Necessary Assumption, Inference, and Reading Comp)

What do the five question types above have in common?

They are all structured this way:
Which of the following, if true / if assumed / if valid, does _____ ?"

The test is offering us these ideas and saying "Pretend for a second that they're true. Would they do _____ ?"

So you can only eliminate or pick an answer on these questions based on whether
SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION - the answer proves the conclusion
STRENGTHEN - the answer makes the argument more persuasive
WEAKEN - the answer makes the argument less persuasive
EXPLAIN (PARADOX) - the answer helps to explain the surprising fact
PRINCIPLE-STRENGTHEN - the answer gets us closer to proving the conclusion