- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:00 am
#36462
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14508)
The correct answer choice is (C)
You should select a response that adequately refl ects the fl ow of the passage, which is that of
introduction and defi nition, followed by discussion of diffi culties and solution, followed by
discussion of results and some implications.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice fails to describe the fi rst paragraph in any way, and that
omission alone eliminates this answer. In addition, the passage does not describe the DNA sequence
of lichen-forming fungi, the passage only mentions that scientists have discovered a sequence.
Answer choice (B): Perhaps the best reason for eliminating this answer choice is the reference to
“application of these fi ndings in support of an evolutionary theory.” First, there term “application”
may be questions, and, in lines 50-53, the author challenges a theory instead of supporting a theory.
While it is possible that the contradiction implies a different hypothesis, the author never argues in
favor of another proposal, so this response is unjustifi ed.
In addition, this response can also be described as incomplete because it fails to reference the
diffi culties scientists had in separating lichen-forming fungi from lichens.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Some test takers will eliminate this response
because they correctly observe that the second, not the last, paragraph discusses the resolution of
diffi culties, and this response appears to group the resolution and implication together. However, you
are instructed to choose the best of fi ve, which means that sometimes you will choose an imperfect
response. Punctuation aside, the description in this response is very accurate. The fi rst paragraph
defi nes lichens, the second describes diffi culties and a resolution in studying lichen-forming fungi,
and the third paragraph discusses the implications of research. Even though this is an obvious case
of trickery on the part of the LSAT test-writers, they would probably argue that this response does
grammatically refl ect the structure by separating the passage into concepts covered rather than
paragraphs, and claim that the omission of the last semicolon was merely a stylistic variation, and
not intended to imply that the fi nal two items in the list appeared in the same paragraph. In a way,
you could have predicted this because the exceedingly long second paragraph actually should have
been broken into two paragraphs: one on diffi culty, the other on resolution.
Answer choice (D): The passage did not describe the symbiotic relationship that constitutes lichens
in-depth, and the passage never discussed a study distinguishing parasitic from symbiotic fungi.
Answer choice (E): Since this response does not reference the fact that scientists now can more
accurately classify lichen-forming fungi from fungi, this response is incomplete. Even more
convincing is that the passage did not discuss a “delineation of the implications these problems have”
(instead, the passage discussed the implications of the new discoveries).
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14508)
The correct answer choice is (C)
You should select a response that adequately refl ects the fl ow of the passage, which is that of
introduction and defi nition, followed by discussion of diffi culties and solution, followed by
discussion of results and some implications.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice fails to describe the fi rst paragraph in any way, and that
omission alone eliminates this answer. In addition, the passage does not describe the DNA sequence
of lichen-forming fungi, the passage only mentions that scientists have discovered a sequence.
Answer choice (B): Perhaps the best reason for eliminating this answer choice is the reference to
“application of these fi ndings in support of an evolutionary theory.” First, there term “application”
may be questions, and, in lines 50-53, the author challenges a theory instead of supporting a theory.
While it is possible that the contradiction implies a different hypothesis, the author never argues in
favor of another proposal, so this response is unjustifi ed.
In addition, this response can also be described as incomplete because it fails to reference the
diffi culties scientists had in separating lichen-forming fungi from lichens.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Some test takers will eliminate this response
because they correctly observe that the second, not the last, paragraph discusses the resolution of
diffi culties, and this response appears to group the resolution and implication together. However, you
are instructed to choose the best of fi ve, which means that sometimes you will choose an imperfect
response. Punctuation aside, the description in this response is very accurate. The fi rst paragraph
defi nes lichens, the second describes diffi culties and a resolution in studying lichen-forming fungi,
and the third paragraph discusses the implications of research. Even though this is an obvious case
of trickery on the part of the LSAT test-writers, they would probably argue that this response does
grammatically refl ect the structure by separating the passage into concepts covered rather than
paragraphs, and claim that the omission of the last semicolon was merely a stylistic variation, and
not intended to imply that the fi nal two items in the list appeared in the same paragraph. In a way,
you could have predicted this because the exceedingly long second paragraph actually should have
been broken into two paragraphs: one on diffi culty, the other on resolution.
Answer choice (D): The passage did not describe the symbiotic relationship that constitutes lichens
in-depth, and the passage never discussed a study distinguishing parasitic from symbiotic fungi.
Answer choice (E): Since this response does not reference the fact that scientists now can more
accurately classify lichen-forming fungi from fungi, this response is incomplete. Even more
convincing is that the passage did not discuss a “delineation of the implications these problems have”
(instead, the passage discussed the implications of the new discoveries).