Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite2% picked this

   It is presented as a potential counterexample to the argument’s

   Our claim is SUPPORT for the Main Conclusion. A counterexample is OPPOSING.

   2%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of the argument’s

   Why this is right

   Looks good. The conclusion was "some dinos were warm-blooded", and why should we believe that? Two premises combined: - some dinos lived in where there were sub-freezing temps - only warm-blooded can live in sub-freezing temps

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
3. C

   Wrong Role5% picked this

   It is presented as counterevidence to the paleobiologists’ assertion that dinosaurs

   The turbinates discussion was how paleobiologists arrived at the conclusion that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded, but the author doesn't ever directly address the turbinate evidence. It also doesn't sound like our claim could sensibly be construed as counterevidence. paleobiologists: dinosaurs lack turbinates us: no, they don't paleobiologists: what's your counterevidence? us: only warm blooded animals can survive sub-freezing temps paleobiologists: ... ?

   5%
4. D

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is the argument’s main

   The conclusion was "these paleobiologists must be mistaken". The conclusion on Role questions is almost never (90% or more of the time) the final claim. The final claim, 90% of the time, is some sort of Supporting idea. We shouldn't expect "only warm-blooded animals can survive sub-freezing temps" to be a conclusion anywhere on LSAT, since it sounds like a fact, not an opinion.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Role15% picked this

   It is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska

   When we have a SUPPORT idea, and an answer choice says, "was it an Intermediate Conclusion", then we just do The Support Test. An intermediate conclusion provides support to the Main Conclusion but receives support from a Premise. Main Conc. why? because Intermediate Conc. why? because Premise According to this answer choice, we could arrange the final two claims like this: Only warm-blooded animals can survive sub-freezing temperatures. Why should we believe that? Because, some dinosaurs lived in Australia and Alaska. Say, WHAT? That conversation made no sense. So we can tell that the 2nd to last idea is not providing support for why we should believe the last idea. The two of them work together to prove the conclusion. Survive sub-freezing ? warm blooded + Some dinosaurs (in Australia/Alaska) survived sub-freezing ------------------ Some dinosaurs warm blooded.

   15%