LSAT CR

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

LSAT CR

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:14 am
When a planetary system forms, the chances that a planet capable of supporting life will be formed are high. The chances that a large planet the size of Jupiter or Saturn will be formed, however, are low. Without Jupiter and Saturn, whose gravitational forces have prevented Earth from being frequently struck by large comets, intelligent life would never have arisen on Earth. Since planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets, the chances that intelligent life will emerge on a planet are, therefore, low.

Knowing which one of the following would be most useful in evaluating the argument?

(A) whether all planetary systems are formed from similar amounts of matter
(B) whether intelligent species would be likely to survive if a comet struck their planet
(C) whether large comets could be deflected by only one large planet rather than by two
(D) how high the chances are that planetary systems will contain many large comets
(E) how likely it is that planetary systems containing large planets will also contain planets the size of Earth
The stimulus already says that "Since planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets" then why do we need an answer to the question raised in D to evaluate the question
. On the contrary B would help us better to evaluate the conclusion
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:08 am
Conclusion: Low chances intelligent life will emerge.

Evidence: Planetary systems unlikely to contain large planets. Large planets have gravity = intelligent life.

Assumptions: Intelligent life could not emerge in other ways; other forces besides large planets could not cause comets to strike the new planet. Large planets could not develop in the future, increasing chances for intelligent life.

Question Rephrase: What kind of information would MOST weaken/strengthen?

Prediction: Info that relates to the assumptions -- data on likelihood of gravitational forces, other ways for life to emerge, etc.

A - irrelevant - the building blocks of systems doesn't concern the argument
B - irrelevant - survival of species is outside the scope; our focus is emergence. The species develop AFTER comets strike the planets.
C - irrelevant - number of planets required to deflect doesn't matter
D - This matches our prediction "likelihood of gravit. forces"
E - irrelevant - size of the planets doesn't matter

D is really the only one that relates to the specificity of the argument.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:56 am
VivianKerr wrote:Conclusion: Low chances intelligent life will emerge.

Evidence: Planetary systems unlikely to contain large planets. Large planets have gravity = intelligent life.

Assumptions: Intelligent life could not emerge in other ways; other forces besides large planets could not cause comets to strike the new planet. Large planets could not develop in the future, increasing chances for intelligent life.

Question Rephrase: What kind of information would MOST weaken/strengthen?

Prediction: Info that relates to the assumptions -- data on likelihood of gravitational forces, other ways for life to emerge, etc.

A - irrelevant - the building blocks of systems doesn't concern the argument
B - irrelevant - survival of species is outside the scope; our focus is emergence. The species develop AFTER comets strike the planets.
C - irrelevant - number of planets required to deflect doesn't matter
D - This matches our prediction "likelihood of gravit. forces"
E - irrelevant - size of the planets doesn't matter

D is really the only one that relates to the specificity of the argument.
Thanks Vivian for the Help But Vivian Its nowhere explicit in the argument that
The species develop AFTER comets strike the planets.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:27 am
Hey mundasingh:

Thanks for the PM and invitation to chime in! A few thoughts here:

1) Great explanation by Vivian, and her bolded term "emergence" is the key on this one. If the conclusion is that "the chances that intelligent life will emerge on a planet are low", then the survival of intelligent life is irrelevant (although subtly so).

Here's another example that may help: Say that in the World Cup, England is in a 4-team group with Germany, Argentina, and Brazil. TV analysts might say "Given England's tough draw, it is extremely unlikely that it will advance to the tournament phase of the World Cup."

Well, at that point, it's irrelevant to say "I think England can win the World Cup - it matches up very well with the defending champion, Spain." Why? Because the initial prediction is that England won't even get that far - it won't ever have a chance to play Spain.

So in this case, whether intelligent life can survive a comet isn't quite relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion already says that life will never get that far - if intelligent life never emerges, what does it matter if it can survive? We're saying it won't get to the point where survival is even an option.

2) The real takeaway that this question gives you is to really focus on the keywords in the conclusion of an argument. The easiest way to miss a CR question is to understand a conclusion that is just slightly out of scope of the actual conclusion, and this is a good example of that. If you saw the conclusion as saying "there is a small chance that intelligent life EXISTS on another planet", then B is a great choice - if that life can withstand a comet then it doesn't matter if comets are hitting the planet. But since it's "emerge" and not "exist", that changes things...

3) This is definitely an LSAT question - the LSAT's CR questions tend to focus on small subtleties like this one a lot more than do GMAT questions. This question probably pushes the upper limit of difficulty on the GMAT...it's fair but that subtlety is a lot easier to get when 95% of the examinees are American political science majors, so it's really well in line with the LSAT and probably a great example of a very, very hard GMAT question. So if you selected B in a nudge over D...you "get" Critical Reasoning. You lost this battle but you're winning the war. So great work on this one - learn the lesson but maintain your confidence!
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:57 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmat25 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:35 am
My pick was Op B, i was between B and D and finally picked the wrong answer.

This is a nice, tricky and thats why a tough CR, Good job @mundasingh thanks for sharing this question.
Princeton Review CAT - 710(Q-51, V-37) --> silly mistakes screwed up my VERBAL

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:00 am
Hi Brian & Vivian Thanks for the excellent explanation.
Brian ,
I still have 1 doubt .
1)The stimulus clearly says
Since planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets, the chances that intelligent life will emerge on a planet are, therefore, low.
The chances that a large planet the size of Jupiter or Saturn will be formed, however, are low.
When we already know that the planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets , why do we need to the likelihood that planetary systems will contain many large planets.
The question that is posed is :
(D) how high the chances are that planetary systems will contain many large comets


2) The question that is posed is :
(D) how high the chances are that planetary systems will contain many large comets
If the answer 0 % .
Then this means that the system will not have many planets , that is , the system will not have more than 1 planet .This means the system could still have 1 planet or no planet .
If there is 1 planet , then intelligent life will emerge
If there is no planet,then intelligent life will not emerge

The question still does not help us decide whether life will emerge or not .

Brian , do you find any flaw in my reasoning . Thanks a lot for your valuable time .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:16 am
Hey mundasingh:

I think I know where you're coming from - and again this is an example of that really subtle wordplay that the LSAT loves perhaps a little more than the GMAT does, but that you shoudl be familiar with.

D is about the likelihood of comets, not about the likelihood of planets. Yes, we know that planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets, but D is talking about comets.

Why are comets important? Well, the paragraph says that the presence of large planets in our system is essential to protect us from large comets. And the inference is that, without large planets - without that defense system against comets - intelligent life couldn't form.

We know that our large planets make our solar system unique. So who's to say that we're also unique in that we have lots of comets? Do we know that most solar systems are plagued by comets? That's what D gets at: if you don't have large comets, you don't need large planets to protect against them.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:15 pm
Thanks Brian , I really committed a big faux pas. i mistook comets for planets. thanks for correcting me LOL
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:16 am

by yash23 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:04 am
Hi Brian and Vivian,

I have a confusion. I analyzed the problem in the following way:

Conclusion: Probability that intelligent life would emerge on a planet is low.

Assumption to reach conclusion from premise: vague generalization- what's true for Earth might not be true for other planets capable of supporting life; for example, some other planet might hold an extremely thick layer of protective atmospheric gas capable of completely burning out large comets before they strike that planet.

Options:
a. irrelevant: amount of matter is not a concern.
b. Seems to be the best answer. Although 'life' is replaced by 'species', which might not really be acceptable.
c. irrelevant: again, the no. of large planets isn't a concern.

d. "how high the chances are that planetary systems will contain many large comets" - Incorrect for the following two reasons -
1. MANY large comets?? how does it matter whether there are many large comets or just a couple of them? It is quite a possibility that a single humongous comet brings life on some planet to extinction.
2. Also, there isn't a need for a planetary system to contain large comets - they might be interstellar comets.

e. irrelevant: size doesn't affect the point under consideration.

Would really appreciate if you could let me know what's the problem with my line of thinking.

Many thanks,

Yash