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: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#35686
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14347)

The correct answer choice is (B)

To support the ocean floor spreading theory, consider the evidence presented in the third paragraph
and identify an answer choice that makes a similar point. As with many scientific arguments, this
one is based on causal reasoning whereby empirically observed evidence (the effect) is explained by
a reference to a particular hypothesis (the cause). The techniques used to strengthen causation in the
Logical Reasoning section of the test should prove equally helpful in attacking this question as well.

Answer choice (A): Since basalt makes up much of the ocean floor, the fact that other types of rock
share the same odd magnetic variations as basalt is irrelevant. This proposition does not lend any
additional support to the ocean floor spreading theory.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If the ages of the earth’s magnetic reversals
have been verified by means other than examining magnetite grains in rock, this would make it even
easier to compare the known ages of magnetic field reversals with the striping pattern of the ocean
floor. Such data would lend additional support to the correlation described in the third paragraph, and
in turn strengthen the ocean floor spreading theory.

Answer choice (C): Just because the continental basalt is similar to the type found on the mid-ocean
ridge does not support the ocean floor spreading theory. For this answer to be attractive, we would
need to establish that the continental basalt exhibits a magnetic striping pattern suggestive of a
process similar to the ocean floor spreading, which is not presented or alluded to in the passage.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice may seem attractive, as the variation in peak height along
the ridge could be interpreted as evidence that some ridges are more structurally weak than others,
allowing more magma to escape through them. Even so, it is entirely possible that a different
geological or oceanic process was responsible for this variation. Furthermore, the author never
alludes to the fact that some ridges mark zones that are structurally weaker than others, adding
another reason why answer choice (D) is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Even if basalt were the only type of submarine rock found near the continents,
this would neither support nor weaken the ocean floor spreading theory.
 JulesC
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: Jul 11, 2019
|
#71037
Hello,

I dont understand why answer choice B, which proves the polarity of the basalt would support the ocean floor spreading theory. Isn't the ocean floor spreading theory having to do with the surface of the ocean floor being spread, as is explained in paragraph 2? I'm not sure why the polarity of the basalt matters in this case. I know that the polarity is given as the third piece of evidence for the theory being true in paragraph 3, but even then, I'm not sure why it is.

Thanks,

Jules
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#71053
Hey Jules! The question is asking us to support, or strengthen, the ocean floor spreading theory, which is the theory that the ocean floor is being pulled away from the mid-ocean ridge and new magma is bubbling up to form new rock at the ridge, with the rocks getting older as you move away from it on either side. We already have some evidence for this theory in the form of the alternating bands of polarity in the basalt as you move away from the ridge, which appear to correlate nicely with what we know about when those magnetic reversals happened (if we assume a certain fairly constant rate of spreading).

To strengthen this theory, answer B gives us some further independent corroboration for when those magnetic reversals happened. Maybe we can find evidence in tree rings, or by examining fossils, or in something in rocks other than magnetite grains. Having independent confirmation of when the reversals happened gives us greater confidence in our measurements based on the magnetite grains, and thus greater confidence in the ocean floor spreading theory, because we can now correlate the alternating bands of polarity on the ocean floor to a second method of measuring those reversals. It's like checking our work on an Assumption question by using the Negation Technique as a back-up plan to using our prephrase! Having a second, independent data set that agrees with your first data set tends to strengthen any claims you might make based on that data set by making it more reliable.

I hope that makes sense, amidst all that science stuff! I'm a little over my head, and not only because I'm on the ocean floor here!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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