Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S1 · Q10 Creating a database of all the plant

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning 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

Start practicing free

Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record has proved to be no easy task.

Statements

It's been hard to create a database of all the plant species in the scientific record.

For hundreds of years, botanists have collected a sample and given it a name (thinking they've discovered a previously undiscovered species), not realizing that the plant had already been discovered and named.

And in other cases, we've discovered that we actually should have been counting a handful of plants as different species, rather than several varieties of one species.

Evaluate

This question stem looks like a soft Must Be False. On Must Be False the correct answer normally contradicts a conditional statement provided or contradicts an available inference we could have made.

There are no conditional statements. Are there any available inferences we can get by combining ideas?

Hmm. The gist of the paragraph is that making a database of all plants is brutal.

In many cases we were over-recording species (a botanist would file species #978 in the ledger, not realizing it was really a duplicate of species #249 that was found years ago).

In many cases we were under-recording species (botanists thought that a collection of plants were just varieties of #360 ... 360a, 360b, 360c, for example--- instead they really should have been 3 separate species).

Goal

Putting those two ideas together, we basically have some sentiment like .

I would have no idea what we're looking for. But it needs to actively go against something we read or some understanding we derived from what we read.

10.

Of the following claims, which one can most justifiably be rejected on the basis of the statements above?

  1. Most of the duplicates and

    Compatible

    It's certainly possible that most of the errors are still in the record. To contradict this, we would have needed to hear that "we're almost done correcting our mistakes", or something like that.

    5% picked this

  2. An accurate database of all

    Compatible

    This is very weakly worded and sounds very plausible. One would think that an accurate database of all plant species could be helpful. To pick this, we would have needed to read that "an accurate database of all plant species is useless to botanists.

    4% picked this

  3. Duplicates and omissions in the

    Compatible

    We never talked about other fields, so this is definitely possible. We can't contradict something we didn't talk about. In order to pick this answer, we would have needed to read that only botany has a problem with duplicates and omissions.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    Botanists have no techniques for

    Why this is right

    This is contradicted by the last sentence. One reason we might be attracted to this answer is its strong language, "Botanists have no techniques". To contradict that claim, we only need evidence that "botanists have at least one technique that can determine whether distinct species have been given distinct names." We do have such a technique: DNA analysis. In the last sentence, DNA analysis was a technique that enable botanists to realize that they had mistakenly taken distinct plant species and categorized them as different varieties of one species. In other words, DNA analysis is a technique that allowed botanists to determine that distinct plant species had not been given distinct names. (when other answer choices are referring to omissions, this is what they're referring to)

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

    73% picked this

  5. A person who consults the

    Compatible

    This seems possible. We heard that there are duplicate entries in the record. Someone nowadays discovers what they think is something new and catalogues it as a new species, not realizing that someone already discovered this species back in 1989. This answer choice is saying that it's possible that if you only look up the 1989 entry, you could miss some available information about that plant. That seems conceivably true, if the modern entry for that species contains any additional info that wasn't in the 1989 entry. In order to contradict this answer, we'd need to have read that every entry in the scientific record for a given species contains identical information. Whether you're reading the 1971 discovery of species X, the time we duplicate-recorded in 1989, or the time we duplicate-recorded it in 2021, all those entries contain the exact same information.

    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.

Save and practice this skill
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