LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8952
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#35292
Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—Fill in the Blank. The correct answer choice is (B)

Fill in the blank questions have become increasingly common in recent years and are essentially a
modified form of Must Be True questions. Answer choices will occasionally differ only by a few
words and these minutes differences can distinguish the correct answer from the others. After you’ve
eliminated the Losers, re-read the stimulus with the Contenders inserted to see which one fits best.

This stimulus addresses the necessity of organs for meeting a need, such as seeing or moving. With
no method of meeting those needs and the fact that many animals share these needs, the author
argues that it is unsurprising to find eyes and wings developing at different times in unrelated
species. The answer which best completes this stimulus will be consistent with the remaining
argumentation.

Answer choice (A): Addressing common environments for different species is not the most logical
completion of an argument about similar organs and needs. In fact, this almost contradicts the rest of
the sentence, which argues that differences in heritage and habitat have no impact on the argument.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This is the best answer. The phrase “satisfy
these needs” ties this answer to the concluding sentence and the phrase “similar adaptations” ties it
to the rest of the stimulus. Finally, the qualifier “in many instances” is consistent with the scope of
the stimulus, beginning with “often”.

Answer choice (C): This is a strong contender and it is only by comparison with answer choice (B)
that the shortcomings here become apparent. Probably the main strike against (C) is that it doesn’t
address the issue of similar adaptations. Without that word, this answer could complete a discussion
about biological adaptation in general but is unconnected to a discussion about wings and eyes
“developing at different times in a number of completely unrelated species”.

Answer choice (D): This does not follow from the argument above. The stimulus argues that
different species have similar needs that will drive the development of similar organs. The answer
suggests that animals will resemble species with different needs, which altogether ignores the
author’s argument and is unsupported.

Answer choice (E): This answer is clearly too extreme. Remember that on the LSAT, it would be
possible to argue that all animals have eyes or wings as adaptations (contrary to your real-world
knowledge), but this argument does not lead to that claim. Eyes or wings are merely examples of the
types of adaptations which often arise in response to certain needs and the author clearly does not
intend these as universal examples.
 moshei24
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: Mar 20, 2012
|
#6570
Hi, I read the explanation that's posted online, but it wasn't very clear.

I chose (C), which logically does fill in the blank; although, maybe (B) fills it in better.

It seems to me that most of the stimulus is fluff, and the only portion that's important is the part where it says that "often a type of organ or body structure is the only physically feasible means of accomplishing a given task." The next part of the stimulus seems unrelated to the final sentence in the stimulus. And then at the end it says, "as organisms animals have fundamentally similar needs and so _______." (Shouldn't there be a comma after "organism"?

I guess that (C) isn't so good of an answer because the stimulus specified that these animals have similar needs, so filling in the blank with a broader answer wouldn't be the best thing to do, but it still does logically fill in the bank; albeit, not the best way to do so.

And (B) works because similar needs would often require similar adaptions to fulfill those needs. Though, I don't really see how you could take "often" in the first sentence to prove this point. Yes, often only one type of organ is the only thing that could accomplish a certain task, but why does that mean they need similar adaptions? Where do we see that similar adaptions are necessary for similar needs?

Can you explain this question for me? Am I right that a large portion of it is fluff? The explanation online isn't clear, so please don't point me there.

Thanks!
 Jason Crandall
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Nov 20, 2012
|
#6576
I can understand why your attention is drawn to the first sentence with the presence of a conditional indicator, but it's important to recognize that there are several other argumentatively significant words here (I've highlighted some of them below).

"SO it should be unsurprising IF, like eyes or wings, that
type of organ or body structure evolves at different
times in a number of completely unrelated species. AFTER ALL,
whatever the difference of heritage and habitat, as
organisms animals have fundamentally similar needs
and SO _______."

I won't waste your time explaining each one, but it must be noted that the sentence you dismissed is actually essential to understanding the argument. The author is not merely noting that animals develop adaptations to meet needs; this is actually an argument about how similar structures arise in unrelated species.

You can think of this stimulus as a "resolved" paradox. The paradox is that unrelated animals with differences of heritage and habitat evolve the same type of organ or body structure at different times. The solution is that animal have similar needs and some needs have only one solution.

Thus, the words "many instances" and "similar adaptation" are essential elements of the correct answer that help explain the observed paradox. To be honest, I don't see any fluff at all here and dismissing these portions of the stimulus is what makes (B) and (C) so difficult to distinguish from one another.

Let me know if I need to explain any further. Thanks!
 Jason Crandall
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Nov 20, 2012
|
#6577
Also, you're probably right about the comma, but it's a judgment call to occasionally omit a coma when it can not result in misinterpretation :) .
 voodoochild
  • Posts: 185
  • Joined: Apr 25, 2012
|
#6582
Jason Crandall wrote: "SO it should be unsurprising IF, like eyes or wings, that
type of organ or body structure
evolves at different
times in a number of completely unrelated species. AFTER ALL, whatever the difference of heritage and habitat, as
organisms animals have fundamentally similar needs
and SO _______."
Jason,

I think that there is another very critical element in that sentence. "Like" -- indicating similarity. The rest of the sentence explains the similarity of adaptations. Hence, B) wins! I also chose C) while solving this.

Thoughts?
 Jason Crandall
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Nov 20, 2012
|
#6585
Agreed. The key here is recognizing that the first "SO" indicates the argument's main conclusion and the second "SO" tells us to find a minor conclusion in support of the (now) unsurprising similarity.

Great point :-D .
 moshei24
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: Mar 20, 2012
|
#6594
It appears that there actually is some fluff in here. The fact that they evolve at DIFFERENT TIMES is not actually necessary for this question. The paradox is that unrelated species evolve the same organ. It's not important that they occur at different times. The paradox is resolved by explaining that because it's often that only one type of organ will do the trick, in many instances, animals must evolve similar adaptions to satisfy those similar needs.

And voodoochild, I will have to disagree with you about the fact that "like eyes or wings" is key to the answer. The reason why (C) is wrong is because it wouldn't really be helpful to resolving the paradox. If they develop adaptions, who says these adaptions are similar? The issue is that the adaptions are similar, and the stimulus is explaining that. You need "many" to explain "often" and it has to be "similar adaptions" or it won't be related to the stimulus where it's talking about "similar needs." "Like eyes or wings" only gives us an example of what it's talking about; it isn't actually needed for the stimulus to make sense.

Jason, do I make sense?

And btw, the point of commas is to give a flow to the writing. If emitting a comma, hurts the flow, or make someone read without a pause, etc., it should've been there.

Thanks!
 Jason Crandall
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Nov 20, 2012
|
#6600
In terms of how you've addressed answer choice (C) here, you are making perfect sense. The broad discussion of needs and adaptations from (C) does not fit this argument as well as the specific discussion of similar adaptation in many instances from (B) does.

As far as fluff, I suppose it depends largely on how you define fluff. I consider fluff to be elements that are used by the author to distract or correct incorrect answer choices. Interpreted properly, nearly all of the language in this answer choice points us toward the correct answer. "Eyes and wings" are examples of the adaptations and "at different times" further reinforces that the paradox exists.

While neither phrase serves a strictly essential argumentative function, ignoring or overlooking them would makes it no easier to find the correct answer and, in my opinion, could make it more difficult.
 voodoochild
  • Posts: 185
  • Joined: Apr 25, 2012
|
#6601
moshei24 wrote:
And voodoochild, I will have to disagree with you about the fact that "like eyes or wings" is key to the answer. The reason why (C) is wrong is because it wouldn't really be helpful to resolving the paradox. If they develop adaptions, who says these adaptions are similar? The issue is that the adaptions are similar, and the stimulus is explaining that. You need "many" to explain "often" and it has to be "similar adaptions" or it won't be related to the stimulus where it's talking about "similar needs." "Like eyes or wings" only gives us an example of what it's talking about; it isn't actually needed for the stimulus to make sense.
Let's dissect this statement from grammatical standpoint. "Like" introduces similarity. (For instance, he acted like a joker vs. he acted as a joker. There is a big difference. That's what I am trying to say.) "that type of organ or body structure" is a noun phrase comparing "eyes" in terms of adaptations. The author is only talking about some adaptations. Why am I using "adaptations"? Answer: "... evolves at different times."

My point was to justify why B is correct, and provide some analysis from that statement. C is plain wrong because it doesn't talk about 'similar adaptations.' We need that noun phrase.

hope that helps.
 moshei24
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: Mar 20, 2012
|
#6614
No, you don't need "eyes and wings." That's giving you an example. You don't need an example in a situation when it tells you that you're dealing with similar adaptions. It introduce eyes and wings as an example. Examples help you understand something, but aren't necessary.

Follow?

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.