Reading Comprehension

PT139 · S3 · P4 · Q24 Calvaria Major and the Dodo

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Calvaria major is a rare but once-abundant tree found on the island of Mauritius, which was also home to the dodo, a large flightless bird that became extinct about three centuries ago.

Topic

The decline of the Calvaria major tree on Mauritius and the debated link to the extinction of the dodo bird.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

Stanley Temple proposed that the near-extinction of the Calvaria major tree was caused by the disappearance of the dodo, which he claimed was necessary for the tree’s seed germination; however, specialists have since challenged Temple’s theory, arguing that the tree can reproduce without the dodo and that other causes may better explain its rarity. (Most Valuable Sentence: The final paragraph, especially: )

P1: Introduction to Calvaria Major and Temple’s Hypothesis

We learn that Calvaria major used to be common on Mauritius, which was also home to the now-extinct dodo. Stanley Temple noted only old, dying Calvaria trees remaining and speculated that the trees stopped reproducing after the dodo disappeared.

P2: Explaining Temple’s Dodo Hypothesis

Temple suggested that the Calvaria fruit evolved a tough pit because the dodo ate the fruit, and that the dodo's process of eating and digesting the fruit was necessary to break down the pit so seeds could germinate. Without dodos, he thought, seeds were trapped and couldn’t grow.

P3: Temple’s Supporting Evidence

Temple did some indirect experiments, like feeding Calvaria pits to turkeys, and a few seeds sprouted. He used data from other birds and seed strength tests to argue that the dodo's gizzard could have done the job, using this as evidence for his theory.

24.

In saying that Temple's supporting evidence lent his argument a "semblance of rigor" (first sentence of the third paragraph), the author most likely intends to indicate that

  1. despite his attempts to use

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: strict methodology Out of Scope: not carefully derived We can't really support these specific claims that he attempted to use strict scientific methodology or that his experimental findings were not carefully derived. The passage is just saying that Temple had a couple pieces of circumstantial evidence that corroborated his theory, so it lent his theory "the aroma of being true".

    8% picked this

  2. direct proof of a hypothesis

    Too Strong: impossible / most exact

    We're told that direct proof was unattainable for the hypothesis he was pitching, that's it. We can't amplify that into some extreme idea that "for this sort of hypothesis, direct proof is always virtually impossible, even with the most exact measurements and observations". This answer should probably feel inherently trappy since it's grabbing language from the beginning of the sentence they're pointing us to.

    5% picked this

  3. in contrast to Temple's secondhand

    Way Too Specific

    The expression "semblance of rigor" is not specifically tied to 13 overmature trees or to experiments with turkeys. Temple had a hypothesis (a causal storyline) for why a certain tree was endangered. He gave this hypothesis a semblance of rigor (he gave it some slight corroboration) by estimating the abrasive force of the dodo's gizzard and by feeding pits from the endangered trees to turkeys. The author was not using "semblance of rigor" to convey a big gap in the scientific credibility between the info Temple had about the trees and the experiments he did with the turkeys.

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    in his experimentation on Calvaria

    Why this is right

    "Superficially appeared to bolster the credibility of his hypothesis" is the gist we were looking for. Naturally, because this is a correct answer, the part we like is hidden towards the back end of the answer choice. Can we sign off on this front end wording? Did Temple produce quantitative experimental results? Yes, he estimated the abrasive force of a dodo's gizzard, that's quantitative. He also had test results determining the crush-resistant strength of Calvaria major pits. That's also a calculable value.

    Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    72% picked this

  5. although the consensus among experts

    Too Positive

    The author is making a concession toward Temple, by saying "semblance of rigor". But it's not as positive as this answer is making it out to be. It's more like, "he wasn't a total clown", not like, "his precision and creativity are admirable!" The phrase "a semblance of rigor" is not really a compliment. It's saying, "This hypothesis was not totally unsupported. He was able to make it look like what he was doing had actual scientific precision. (But it did not)." The author doesn't say anything complimentary about Temple in the whole passage. The closest it comes is "dramatic and intriguing", but that's not necessarily a compliment when we're talking about science.

    6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free