#20 - Agricultural scientist: Wild apples are considerably

[ltowns1]

I did this test today and I got the answer wrong. My only problem with (B) was that I felt like it wasn’t necessarily referring to size? I thought resemblance does not necessarily equate to size. Looking back, maybe I was just a little too critical for this one.

[Adam Tyson]

I think perhaps that is exactly what happened, ltowns1. Resemblance probably includes multiple factors, and it's reasonable to think that overall size is one of them, especially given that this argument is all about size. Think back to your prephrase - what were you looking for in the correct answer? I was thinking it would be something like "if they had just started cultivating them, maybe they hadn't gotten bigger yet?" Having a solid prephrase before heading into the answers is the key to ensuring that you don't reject good answers or get drawn in to wrong ones. Then, your job is to pick from among your contenders the best answer left standing. It need not be perfect, just the best of the bunch, and answer A is a pretty good one once you accept that size matters.

Keep at it, and don't be too hard on the answers, or on yourself!

[cmorris32]

In reaching this conclusion, the scientist has made an error that appears frequently on the LSAT. The
scientist thinks that the remains found by archaeologists are from wild apples because they are the
same size as wild apples, which the author appears to assume are the same size now as they were
5,000 years ago. The scientist further assumes that just like cultivated apples today are much larger
than wild apples, apples cultivated 5,000 years ago would be larger than wild apples. But there is no
evidence to support this assumption of continuity over time. It may very well be the case that 5,000
years ago cultivated apples were the same size as wild apples.

Is the common flaw this explanation is referring to a time shift error? The problem I identified with this stimulus was that the author assumed that conditions today are the same conditions a long time ago (I apologize if that wording does not make sense). I just want to make sure that I fully understand the error in this stimulus.

[Paul Marsh]

Hey cmorris! You're exactly right, this Flaw would best be categorized as a Time Shift error. It sounds like the problem you identified was right on the money - assuming that conditions in the past were the same as conditions today is the Flaw here and that is indeed a Time Shift error. You may have struggled to categorize this since most Time Shift errors deal with a future prediction; however they certainly can deal with the past as well. Here's a nice blog post from Jon if you want a quick refresher:

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid-29 ... ft-errors/

Hope that helps!

[mab9178]

Hi,

Please, help: I want to make sure I eliminate the wrong answers for the correct reasoning.

I anticipated B and ultimately selected it, but reading the explanations (i.e., the main key-explanation and other experts') concerning the elimination of answer-choice C is making me second guess my reasoning!

The provided expert explanations as to why C should be eliminated is that the author does not discuss ALL apple sizes.

This explanation of why C is wrong gave me trouble for two reasons:

First, because I cannot conceive of a category OTHER THAN wild and cultivated. Is there a category of apples that classifies them as neither wild nor cultivated?

But second, and more important, even if the author covered ALL apple sizes, the argument would still be flawed. C should be eliminated simply because it fails to address the flaw, not because it does not discuss ALL the sizes!

Concerning the first reason, if there are no classifications for apples other than wild and cultivated, then discussing the sizes of these two categories would cover ALL apple sizes.

Concerning the second reason, the actual flaw that C misses irrespective of whether the author did or did not address ALL apple sizes: The flaw is that when the cultivation had just began, 5000 years ago, not enough time had passed for the then-cultivated apples to resemble today's cultivated ones; 5K years ago the cultivated apples must've looked more similar to the wild ones than they did compared to today's cultivated apples because all apples/fruits were once wild!

In retrospect, sure the author covered All the sizes, but that's not the flaw, so eliminate C. Or, no, the author did not address ALL the sizes, again though, not the flaw, so eliminate C.

Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand provided key-explanation? Does it matter if there were a third category classifying apples as neither wild nor cultivated?

(I hope I did not misapprehend some basic concept like I did with another LR question concerning the battery-power cars and electric power-plant!)

Your help is greatly appreciated!

Thank You
Mazen

[atierney]

Hi Mazen,

Worry not, I am here to help!

Firstly, the category of yes or no is typically always binary, so that here, the category at issue is cultivated or not, splitting the entire population of apples into two. Notice that this is simply one attribute apples may have, their color for example, can be yellow, green, or red, so that there are clearly other, and non-binary, classifications of apples. However, when looking through the lens of any give classification, specifically one which is binary, then the other categories are ignored for the purpose of that particular comparison.

Answer choice C attempts to create a binary category with respect to size. This particular category is irrelevant to the argument at hand. The author's does not assume this category (implicitly create it), and the author's argument also does not rely upon it. The specific division of size between big and small is not at issue in this argument. The idea is that cultivated apples are bigger in a relative sense, but not in an absolute categorical sense. Apples, in practice, might vary in size significantly, albeit only relatively speaking, that is within a general frame of reference to apple sizing. A similar analogy may be used with human sizing; there are humans less than five feet tall, but larger than seven and a half feet tall. The variation is such that, in an absolute sense, it is not meaningful to create a binary category of big or small, or even big or not big, especially considering that most human height is determined by a secondary category, sex, and skews toward a median (5'5" and 5'10").

Let me know if this not clear, but basically the issue is big or small is not the right category to use here, and its imposition in this argument is irrelevant to the argument's validity. But I'm happy to explain this further if needed.