BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

LSAT CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:56 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

LSAT CR

by sohrabkalra » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:14 am
The folktale that claims that a rattlesnakes age can be determined from the no of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and and sometimes partially or completely break off. So , if they were not so brittle one could reliably determine a rattlesnakes age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts

which of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn ?

A) Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year
B) The rattles of rattlsnakes of different species are identical
C)Rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than old
D) The brittleness of a rattlesnakes rattle is not correlated with the length of a rattlesnakes life
E) Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful

Wil post the OA after a few replies !
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:23 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by Ananthakrishnan » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:24 am
Number of sections in the rattle --> age of rattle snake

1 new section is formed each time a rattle sname molts.

The missing link in the above statements is the link between the age of the snake and the number of times the molt occurs in a year.

Option A bridges that gap clearly.

IMO - Option A
Official answer please?
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:23 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by Ananthakrishnan » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:25 am
Number of sections in the rattle --> age of rattle snake

1 new section is formed each time a rattle sname molts.

The missing link in the above statements is the link between the age of the snake and the number of times the molt occurs in a year.

Option A bridges that gap clearly.

IMO - Option A
Official answer please?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:18 am
A looks more like a trap . IMO D
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:26 am
Location: Madison, WI
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:770

by Luke.Doolittle » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:07 am
(A) is a trap answer. Invert it and you will see why.

"Rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once per year"

This doesn't weaken the conclusion. They could molt twice per year and the conclusion would still follow from the premises.

Now try inverting (E)

"Rattlesnakes do not molt as often when food is scarce..."

The argument states that "if they were not so brittle one could reliably determine a rattlesnakes age simply from...". Put another way this indicates the age is determined only by the number of sections. Thus the inverted version of (E) gives a reason to doubt this conclusion; there is another reason, other than age, that determines the number of sections in a rattle.

Example: take two snakes, the same age, one has had an abundant food supply its entire life and one not. The snake with the abundant food supply will have more sections despite being the same age.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:55 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by XLogic » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:48 pm
This is the famous "Rattle Snake" problem! One of the most feared in all of LSAT.
Notice I said LSAT, because this is not a GMAT CR question.

LSAT requires you to make clear distinctions between necessary and sufficient assumptions. GMAT CR not so much. Therefore, I'm not convinced that posting necessary assumption questions -- LSAT questions for that matter -- will benefit this forum.

I can be dissuaded :-)
my post helped --> thank me!
don't thank me --> my post = what the..??
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:56 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by sohrabkalra » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:52 pm
Thanks Luke , Nice explanation !

I did the same mistake as ananth of interpreting " a rattlesnakes age can be determined from the no of sections in its rattle " AS "Rattlesnakes age = No of sections "

Hence, i eliminated E as in that case it would have had infact weakened the conclusion !

OA is E
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1