LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

User avatar
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: Feb 22, 2021
I've gotten this wrong twice now. I still don't see how D is correct. I didn't really like any of the choices.

If I were the author and someone challenged me with D, I would say, "The Baja turtles could be mating at BOTH the Japan site and the Atlantic. Just because the turtles resemble the Atlantic kind doesn't mean they can't also resemble the Japanese kind.

I liked C because I think it's very reasonable to assume a rough correlation between number of turtles and number of nesting sites. If a site has 1 million turtles, I expect to find more nesting sites than if it had 1 turtle. Although the reason I didn't like C was because of the possibility that the Baja turtles could have multiple hatching sites elsewhere that are growing and compensating for the decrease in Japan.

Dave Killoran, elsewhere on the forum, posted about not being clinically logical on Weaken questions and allow some wiggle room. I think that's what I'm doing here.

I could see how D could be the clear answer if the stimulus had said it is impossible for Baja turtles to reach the Atlantic but it doesn't say that. Assuming you know Baja is near Central America, why can't the turtles swim around Argentina and hatch in the South Atlantic in addition to Japan? That would explain the genetic similarities and not weaken the argument.
User avatar
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Aug 04, 2021
How do you know which part of the stimulus is the conclusion
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1008
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013

The stimulus sets up that a 95% match in DNA indicates a commonality of origin. Answer choice (D) shows that, if we consider 95% DNA match to indicate that, we now have the same level of matching in another population, so either the 95% matching wasn't a good standard, or else there's just as much evidence of an Atlantic origin, weakening the argument either way.

For answer choice (C), there is no indication in the stimulus that there even are any Baja nesting sites. Some turtles feed near the Baja peninsula, but there may be 0 nesting sites there. So saying there are fewer nesting sites there isn't going to weaken the argument, but be perfectly consistent with it.


"New evidence suggests" means "this evidence helps show the following", so whatever the evidence supposedly suggests would be the conclusion.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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