LSAT reasoning problem help...

[blipblop]

The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off. So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts

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

A. Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year

B. The rattles of rattlesnakes of different species are identical in appearance

C. Rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than when old

D. The brittleness of a rattlesnake's rattle is not correlated with the length of the rattlesnake's life

E. Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful.

Can someone explain to me why E is the correct answer?

 

[ThePresence]

I would think that A is the correct answer.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Heh... that's a tough one... are you sure "E" is right? I would only guess that choice "E" demonstrates consistency in the molting process (i.e., it's not affected by outside factors) but choice "A" would also meet that end. Otherwise... I see no connection at all. This isn't like, a biology test is it? I assume this would be solvable by a non-reptile expert?

 

[blipblop]

Yea, it says in the answer key that E is the correct answer. I simply cannot find a way to explain it.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: blipblop
Yea, it says in the answer key that E is the correct answer. I simply cannot find a way to explain it.

Well, E can be correct, but I don't see why A is not as well.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I've had study materials in which the answer key contained wrong answers. I dunno... It just doesn't add up... choice E almost certainly can't be the answer. I'd sure love to hear the reasoning if it is.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
I've had study materials in which the answer key contained wrong answers. I dunno... It just doesn't add up... choice E almost certainly can't be the answer. I'd sure love to hear the reasoning if it is.

E has to be correct for the argument to be true, but then A is as well.

 

[Vegitto]

I KNOW that E is correct, but seeing how most law students (or anyone, for that matter) are not expected to know anything about rattle snakes, and the text doesn't imply anything else than A, I'm going to go with A.

 

[kranky]

"A" could be false yet the argument still would be valid - if rattlesnakes molt exactly twice a year, for example.

And B, C and D are obviously wrong.

But if "E" is false, then the argument cannot hold.

 

[blipblop]

I would have guessed A, but in answer E the subject of food is brought up and I didn't see any mention of that in the question.

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
Heh... that's a tough one... are you sure "E" is right? I would only guess that choice "E" demonstrates consistency in the molting process (i.e., it's not affected by outside factors) but choice "A" would also meet that end. Otherwise... I see no connection at all. This isn't like, a biology test is it? I assume this would be solvable by a non-reptile expert?

B,C,D are ruled out. A seems to be the obvious choice. But you hit the nail on the head with the "consistency" explanation.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: kranky
"A" could be false yet the argument still would be valid - if rattlesnakes molt exactly twice a year, for example.

And B, C and D are obviously wrong.

But if "E" is false, then the argument cannot hold.

Ahh, I see. If they molt any exact number during a specific period, you can still deterrmine it's age from the amount of sections. Yep, E is the only correct answer.

 

[TackleDummy]

E is correct because in order to gauge the snake's life it just has to molt in regular intervals, whether that be a year or any other time frame.

The question does not assume that rattlesnakes molt once a year, just on a regular basis.

 

[ATLien247]

'E' is correct because it infers that molting occurs at a consistent rate. 'A' is not correct because the length of time between molting does not need to be exactly one year--it could be any amount of time.

 

[blipblop]

wow ATOT you guys are great! Who needs those prep classes!

 

[CptObvious]

I'll give it a shot

A - the argument doesn't claim a specific frequency of molting, so this assumption would not be helpful. The snake could molt at intervals less than or greater than a year.

B - the argument doesn't compare different species, so it would not be helpful

C - this assumption would probably hurt the argument, since the argument implies the snake molts at regular intervals

D - even if the brittleness was correlated with the length of the snake's life, it would not be relevant because the issue is the regular intervals of the snake's molting and not the brittleness of the rattle

E - this supports the argument's inference that the snake molts at regular intervals, despite any other external factors, so therefore the age can be determined reliably

...probably didn't make too much sense.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I would think that A is the correct answer.

a and e are similar but A is more specific and so more than necessary.

at least e is required.

 

[Goosemaster]

as giantpinkbunnyhead wrote, it forms the basis for a pattern that can be adequately invalidated by the argument.

not a because of C

if not C, then A

The reason it is not A, I would say, has something to do with the fact that the A serves to introduce consistency but introduces even more information by mentioning a yearly reoccurance, while statement E only serves to introduce consistency without the addition of a timetable.

 

[Savij]

You don't need A to be correct. If a rattlesnake molts 5 times a year then you can divide the number of rattles by 5 to get the age in years. If it's twice a year than you can divide by two. Age doesn't imply something happens once per year.

On the other hand, the snake has to molt at some interval that isn't related to the environment. If a snake lives in a mouse farm and gets all the food it can handle it shouldn't be able to molt more often. If the molting is related to the food then it doesn't give you age, it gives you how well it's been nourished in it's lifetime. You have to know that the food doesn't affect the molting to be able to use the rattles to guage the age.

 

[rsd]

I said E

I see why A isn't required, because as long as it is done consistently the interval really doesn't matter.

 

[hiredgoons]

Answer A is incorrect because the passage never states that you can determine a rattlesnake's age in years, but rather that you can determine its age given the number of segments in its tail. Even if the frequency of their molting decreased as snakes aged, a snake with more tail sections would still be older than one with fewer.

Answer B is irrelevant to the question.

Answer C is incorrent for the same reason as A; it doesn't change the validity of the method (and it isn't assumed anyway).

Answer D isn't totally irrelevant, and it also isn't assumed. Even if there was a correlation between brittleness and age, it wouldn't reliably allow you to determine the age of the snake, since a younger snake could easily have a shorter tail and would just be a statistical anomaly.

Answer E is correct because, while it doesn't assume that rattlesnakes molt according to a specific timeline, the argument does assume that all snakes molt at approximately the same time intervals. If food supply affects the rate of molting, the method becomes unreliable for an additional reason, since you can't say for sure that a snake with a longer tail is older than one with a shorter tail; you can only say that the one with the longer tail is either older or has had more ready access to food.

I apologize if this doesn't make complete sense; it's 7 AM here and I haven't slept yet. If necessary I'll clarify later. *edit* apparently 10 people replied while I was writing this... I hope this helps anyway

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ATLien247
'A' is not correct because the length of time between molting does not need to be exactly one year--it could be any amount of time.

hit the nail on the head.

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: kranky
"A" could be false yet the argument still would be valid - if rattlesnakes molt exactly twice a year, for example.

And B, C and D are obviously wrong.

But if "E" is false, then the argument cannot hold.

Yeah, that is pretty clear. It doesnt HAVE to be A because all you need is consistent molting, not yearly molting. Maybe kranky and I should go to law school

 

[ElFenix]

the real answer: don't go to law school

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: blipblop
wow ATOT you guys are great! Who needs those prep classes!

<-- this guy