- Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:57 pm
#65392
Hi Lane,
This is a flaw question, so Prephrasing is necessary to avoid being sucked into attractive wrong answer choices. In the stimulus, we have a conclusion that contains a large logical leap from the premises given: it assumes that just because there are now more known cases of a phenomenon, that this phenomenon must be occurring in more species. However, there is an obvious possibility that the stimulus overlooks: maybe humans/scientists simply have learned more than they knew before, and that these species have always been capable of parthenogenesis, so it isn't necessarily becoming more common amongst species. This is what we should be looking for in an answer choice.
(A) - This isn't happening in the stimulus; there is no confusion about interest versus knowledge. Incorrect.
(B) - This isn't a causal stimulus and there isn't a causal flaw here, so incorrect.
(C) - This is one abstract way of phrasing our Prephrase; the problem with the stimulus is that it assumes that the prior ignorance of parthenogenesis in certain species meant that those species weren't capable of it. This is the correct answer.
(D) - This describes an analogical flaw, but there isn't any analogy drawn in the stimulus. Incorrect.
(E) - Newer = Better is a flaw that comes up from time to time on the LSAT, but not here. Could be attractive if one fails to Prephrase, but a good Prephrase would point at the correct answer choice. Incorrect.
Hope this clears things up!
