Logical Reasoning

PT5 · S1 · Q8 Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees

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

Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left among other footprints in hardened volcanic ash at site G. Dr. Tyson claims they are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics: a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe.

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

8.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Dr. Tyson’s conclusion?

  1. The footprints showing human characteristics

    Opposite, if anything

    This would help Dr. Tyson's argument, if anything. He could say, "Hey, Dr. Rees. You are seeing this wrong by seeing one person walking funny but it's actually two people."

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    Certain species of bears had

    Why this is right

    This argument has an Explain a Curious Fact pattern. Curious Fact... What are the footprints? Explanation... They are from hominids because of the squarish heel and big toe next to an adjacent toe. We expect the correct answer to either provide an alternate explanation for the Curious Fact or to weaken the plausibility of the Explanation. This could be an alternate explanation for the footprints. This species would still have the squarish heel since the only thing that would be different are the toes. It could also explain the cross-stepping manner that Dr. Rees brought up because the bears' footprints would look like you switched a human's left foot for his right and vice versa. This is a tough answer to come to without visualizing.

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

    59% picked this

  3. Footprints shaped like a human’s

    Weaker Impact

    We don't actually know that these other footprints are human. Are we allowed to assume that because one set of prints did not show the cross-stepping pattern and the other did that one set is human and the other isn't? No. This answer creates some doubt but doesn't have the same impact as B. When in doubt, go with the alternate explanation, which in this case is (B).

    17% picked this

  4. When the moist volcanic ash

    Too weak

    We would not expect the footprint to be perfectly preserved since it is prehistoric. Additionally, that some details are missing doesn't really impact argument.

    15% picked this

  5. Most of the other footprints

    No Impact

    We know that the footprints the argument is about have a heel and toes. We wouldn't argue that the footprints are actually hoof prints.

    2% 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