Discussion
Which one of the following, if true, would most help to resolve the apparent conflict presented above?
*This question is included in June 2012 LSAT (PT66): Logical Reasoning B, question #18
| (A) | Early humans had a significantly lower metabolic rate than anatomically modern humans, allowing them to expend their fat reserves more efficiently. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 01/05/2013 19:32
Ok I strongly disagree with this answer. I think C is correct. We are talking here about what was required for brain evolution in our ancestors...high calorie fatty foods which were abubdant n the shores. To olve the conflict (brain evolution took place in savanna and woodland areas) we should choose C, which states that prehistoric savanna/woodland areas had more abundant resources back then (ie...they had the high calorie/fatty foods needed for brain development.).
Your "correct" answer talks about strenous work that burned a lot of calories, etc....That has nothing to do with the passage.
I dont get it!
Your "correct" answer talks about strenous work that burned a lot of calories, etc....That has nothing to do with the passage.
I dont get it!
Posted: 02/01/2013 19:59
The fact that woodland areas were better resourced back then in no way explains why they were favored over the shores (which we know had yet even better resources (back then)). The fact that the shores required more work (calorie burning) would resolve this discrepancy.
Posted: 02/07/2013 21:27
If gathering foods in a shore environment burned a lot more calories (the "correct" answer), this would only mean that they consumed more calories than their woodland counterparts. And if high calorie diets were essential to brain evolution, this in fact would deepen the mystery of the passage, not resolve it.
What am I missing? I think the test takers messed this one up.
What am I missing? I think the test takers messed this one up.
Posted: 02/07/2013 22:05
They burned more calories which would then require even greater consumption as well. This would mean that in order for the shores to still be most advantageous, the extent to which they out-resourced the woodland areas would need to EXCEED the degree to which the extra calorie burning posed a burden. This would certainly not necessarily be the case.
Example: the shores offer 2000 cal a day but require burning an extra 400. The Woodlands offer 1800 calories but only require 100 in effort. The Woodlands would come out 100 cal ahead.
Example: the shores offer 2000 cal a day but require burning an extra 400. The Woodlands offer 1800 calories but only require 100 in effort. The Woodlands would come out 100 cal ahead.
Posted: 02/27/2013 18:34
The LSAC do mess up once in a blue moon, for example, see this thread: http://www.arcadiaprep.com/discussions/735/pt_28_s2_q9to_prepare_for_fieldwork_exactly_four_different_researchersa_geologist_/
However, this kind of error very rarely happens. When in doubt, it is a safe bet that you are missing something.
Adam, thanks for the comment.
However, this kind of error very rarely happens. When in doubt, it is a safe bet that you are missing something.
Adam, thanks for the comment.