#11 - Lydia: Red squirrels are known to make holes in the

kcho10

Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:10 pm
Points: 50

Hi,

Can someone explain why (C) is incorrect? Thank you!
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 2552
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,366

I'll take a stab at it, kcho! The problem with C, while it looks like it might be some sort of "the cause is absent so the effect is absent" answer (or perhaps "the cause is lower so the effect is lower"), is that it does nothing to weaken Galina's approach - it still could be the case that sugar doesn't make sense as the cause because the concentration is so low. If answer C does weaken the argument (and it looks like a contender at first blush, albeit a pretty weak one), it clearly doesn't do the kind of damage that answer D does, because D directly counters the "low concentration/have to drink a lot of water" argument that she advanced. If D is true, then the squirrels DON'T have to drink much, if any, water to get the sugar! D does massive damage to her argument, and the stem asks us, as usual, to pick the answer that "most undermines" the argument, rather than just one that might undermine some.

Focus on that task of picking the best answer, rather than one that just might work, and these loser answers will be much more easily disposed of. Good luck!
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
LSAT2018
LSAT Master

Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:11 am
Points: 274

Adam Tyson wrote:I'll take a stab at it, kcho! The problem with C, while it looks like it might be some sort of "the cause is absent so the effect is absent" answer (or perhaps "the cause is lower so the effect is lower"), is that it does nothing to weaken Galina's approach - it still could be the case that sugar doesn't make sense as the cause because the concentration is so low. If answer C does weaken the argument (and it looks like a contender at first blush, albeit a pretty weak one), it clearly doesn't do the kind of damage that answer D does, because D directly counters the "low concentration/have to drink a lot of water" argument that she advanced. If D is true, then the squirrels DON'T have to drink much, if any, water to get the sugar! D does massive damage to her argument, and the stem asks us, as usual, to pick the answer that "most undermines" the argument, rather than just one that might undermine some.

Focus on that task of picking the best answer, rather than one that just might work, and these loser answers will be much more easily disposed of. Good luck!

So answer (C) strengthens Galina's argument that low concentration of sugar means that the squirrels will be less likely to consume the tree's sap?
For answer (D), the answer seems to take Galina's objection and point out that it is irrelevant because the water evaporation in the sap makes it likely that the squirrels are after the sugar?