Role in ArgumentDiff: Hard
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Biologists agree humans evolved from a fish and that frogs are related to that fish, but they fight over which fish it was based on different chemical markers.
Conclusion: Dr. Stevens-Hoyt and Dr. Grover disagree on which specific fish species is the ancestor of humans.
Reasoning: Both scientists use the fact that frogs are related to the human fish ancestor as a starting point to apply their respective evidence, such as mitochondrial DNA or hemoglobin matches.
Analysis: This is a Role in Argument question, so we must identify how the specific claim functions within the logic. The statement about the frog's ancestry is a premise that both scientists accept as true. It serves as the necessary link that allows them to use data from amphibians to make claims about human evolution. Without this shared assumption, their individual arguments regarding lungfish or coelacanths would lack a logical bridge to the human lineage.
Conclusion: Dr. Stevens-Hoyt and Dr. Grover disagree on which specific fish species is the ancestor of humans.
Reasoning: Both scientists use the fact that frogs are related to the human fish ancestor as a starting point to apply their respective evidence, such as mitochondrial DNA or hemoglobin matches.
Analysis: This is a Role in Argument question, so we must identify how the specific claim functions within the logic. The statement about the frog's ancestry is a premise that both scientists accept as true. It serves as the necessary link that allows them to use data from amphibians to make claims about human evolution. Without this shared assumption, their individual arguments regarding lungfish or coelacanths would lack a logical bridge to the human lineage.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage16.Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved?
Correct Answer
D
D is correct. The claim that frogs are definitely related to the ancestral fish is a shared assumption both scientists use as a starting point for their competing evidential strategies (DNA vs. hemoglobin). It anchors their arguments but does not itself resolve the dispute.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal