- Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:29 am
#48065
While "recent" is a bit subjective, chian9010, it's reasonable to presume that the recent study was conducted after at least some of the pollution began, since that has been going on "for years". In this context, we would be unlikely to view a study that was done years ago, before the farm runoff began polluting the pond, as recent.
The real issue here is not the timing, but that the author assumes that the fishing guide actually knows which fish species is the most populous, either because he is familiar with the study or through other sources and experience. What if the farmer is under the impression that smallmouth bass are the most populous species in the pond? If that was true (and whether he was correct about it or not), the conclusion would be incorrect. It was this unwarranted assumption - that the guide believes the info in the study to be correct.
Answer C actually doesn't matter, because the author didn't rely on the accuracy of the study. Instead, he said "if, as recent studies suggest, the most populous fish species in the pond is the bullhead catfish...". In other words, he isn't relying on the study being right, but just saying that if it is right, then the fishing guide must share that knowledge. Since there is no evidence that the guide has to believe or know the same info that the study provided, the conclusion is unsupported by the evidence, and that's the flaw.
I hope that clear the waters a bit for you! Let us know if they're still muddy!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam