Reading Comprehension

PT156 · S1 · P4 · Q26 Sand Fossils

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

`Discovered in 1993, the site known as Ukhaa Tolgod, in the Gobi desert of Mongolia, is one of the world's best sources of fossils from the Late Cretaceous period, which ended about 65 million years ago.

Topic

Ukhaa Tolgod fossil site in Mongolia and how its fossils were so well-preserved.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Scientists originally thought the fossils at Ukhaa Tolgod were preserved by sudden sandstorms, but evidence now points to rain-triggered debris flows (sandslides) in stable, vegetated dune fields as the real cause. (The Most Valuable Sentence appears at the end of the first paragraph and is echoed in the third: "this sandstorm hypothesis is probably mistaken" and )

P1: Introduction to Ukhaa Tolgod and the Original Sandstorm Hypothesis

This paragraph introduces Ukhaa Tolgod as an incredible fossil site from the Late Cretaceous and describes how the quality of the fossils was initially attributed to instant, deadly sandstorms that rapidly buried the animals. But new geological evidence challenges this idea.

P2: Geological Evidence: Types of Sandstone and Where Fossils Are Found

Here, we learn about three kinds of sandstone at the site. Only the third type—which isn’t windblown, has no layering, and contains large pebbles—holds the fossils. The other two types are related to wind activity but don’t have skeletons. This points away from the sandstorm theory.

P3: The Debris Flow (Sandslide) Hypothesis

This paragraph explains that the third sandstone type matches what you'd expect from a rain-soaked dune suddenly collapsing in a debris flow. Such an event could quickly bury animals just like an avalanche, explaining the fantastic fossil preservation.

26.

The author's main purpose in discussing the sandstorm hypothesis (last two sentences of the first paragraph) is to

  1. question the wisdom of the

    Too Strong: question the wisdom

    The function of this part isn't to mock the sandstorm scientists for being dumb. A lot of initial hypotheses are wrong. That's science. We don't make it personal. Notice that trap answers on Local Purpose questions often use words from within the detail sentence(s) we're being asked about, whereas the correct answer usually sounds more like the parts of the passage that surround the detail sentence(s).

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    provide the basis for a

    Why this is right

    The competing hypothesis is the sandslide hypothesis. The author is establishing in that final sentence of the 1st paragraph: 1. we've got some new data about the geological formations of the fossil site 2. it makes us think that it wasn't sandstorms (so now we have this new hypothesis instead)

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

    85% picked this

  3. explain the geological basis for

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: geological basis Too Narrow: only covers 1st sentence Nothing in these sentences explains a geological basis (there's no discussion of properties of the rock the fossils were found in). If we got rid of the word "geological", then it's probably fair to say the first of the two sentences explains to us the rationale that underlaid the sandstorm hypothesis. But this answer doesn't cover the second of the two sentences at all. Notice, again, that the trap answer tries to make you look within the detail sentence(s), whereas the correct answer speaks to things that surround the detail sentence(s).

    6% picked this

  4. show how adherence to the

    Out of Scope: hindered

    There's no indication that because of people's devotion to the sandstorm hypothesis there wasn't some fruitful form of research being done. No causal connection is drawn between the previous theory and conducting any type of research.

    2% picked this

  5. establish that scientists formulating the

    Too Strong: ignored

    This sounds harsh and accusatory. The reason we now think the sandstorm hypothesis is probably wrong is based on new evidence gathered by scientists. So the older scientists couldn't have been ignoring evidence that hadn't even been gathered yet.

    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