June 2013 LSAT, Reading Comprehension, Q27

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project It's been a hell of a last nine days! The June 2013 LSAT was released last Monday, July 2. Since then, I've been working nonstop to get explanations posted for the entire test. I did video for all four logic games, crowdsourced the majority of the Logical Reasoning, and wrote the Reading Comprehension explanations myself because I wouldn't wish those on anybody. This is the last post in the series... 100 blog posts in all. Thanks so much for reading, for participating, and for telling a friend. I hope you've found the explanations helpful.

This question is a "Must Be True EXCEPT," which means that four of the answers will have support from the passage and one answer, the correct answer, will either be something that was never mentioned or the opposite of something that was mentioned. Here's my summary of the entire passage, if you need a refresher.

A. Just because the passage doesn't mention it doesn't necessarily mean that the author believes Temple's critics haven't definitely identified the causes of Calvaria's thick seed pods. But the author does seem to think that it's hard to definitively prove anything, especially when you're going back thousands or millions of years looking for evolutionary causes. It's a good bet that the author would agree with A. Let's see if we can find an answer that we know the author disagrees with.

B. I do think the author would agree with this, because the passage gave an example that suggests seeds germinate more easily when abraded. They wouldn't have to do this if their seeds weren't so thick, so maybe seed thickness has been hurting the Calvaria.

C. Wait, what? Isn't this the opposite of what's happening with the Calvaria? The seeds are germinating at a low rate, due to seed thickness. So why would it be surprising that the tree is not abundant? I bet this is the answer, since it seems to be the exact opposite of what the passage suggests.

D. I think the author would agree with this. Evidence in the final paragraph suggests that the Calvaria situation isn't as dire as Temple made it out to be.

E. The passage might not explicitly say this, but it does say that dodo-digestion wasn't necessary. If dodo-digestion isn't necessary, then why would bird digestion be necessary? Couldn't I take a pocketknife or some sandpaper and sufficiently abrade a Calvaria seed and get it to germinate? I bet the author would say I could.

This was a bit of a tricky question, because we're not sure that the author agrees with A, B, D, or E. But we do know that the author disagrees with C. So C is our answer for this EXCEPT question.

 

Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends!

--nathan

About me: I'm  the owner of Fox LSAT and FoxTestPrep.com. Please email me at fox.edit@gmail.com, call me at 415-518-0630, Tweet me @nfoxcheck out my books here, and watch 15 hours of free LSAT classes here.

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project