Top Law Schools

Hello! I have difficulty understanding why B is the correct answer.

The question stem asks for an answer that 'can be true EXCEPT', in other words, it asks for something that's contradictory with the stimulus.

I read many discussions of this problem in other forums, the reason given to justify B is: in the stimulus, it says that 'tools same ---> daily challenge same' and 'they live in different environments'. Thus, it follows that different environments must have same challenges.

I am not convinced by this reasoning. In this case, true, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons live in different environments but have the same type tools, indicating that their daily challenges are the same. But does this fact hold in other cases? We don't know. So it is also possible that another two specific environments, such as ancient Egypt and ancient Africa, post different challenges to their inhabitants. In addition, answer B goes: 'The daily challenges with which AN environment confronts its inhabitants are unique to that environment.' This statement is not restricted to the environments discussed in the stimulus, but environments in general. Given these considerations, I really feel very hard to accept B as the correct answer.

Please share your thoughts! Thanks!

I don't quite see why other hypotheticals would be relevant here. Doesn't B imply that EACH environment poses a unique set of daily challenges, including the environments in which Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals lived?

Put differently, the fact that B is generic and applies to all environments implies that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals ("living in different environments") did *not* face the same daily challenges.

Blougram wrote:I don't quite see why other hypotheticals would be relevant here. Doesn't B imply that EACH environment poses a unique set of daily challenges, including the environments in which Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals lived?

Put differently, the fact that B is generic and applies to all environments implies that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals ("living in different environments") did *not* face the same daily challenges.

I think if it states 'ANY environment' it makes sense: It is stating an principle/general fact which contradicts the specific fact in the case of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. But it states 'The daily challenges with which AN environment confronts its inhabitants are unique to that environment'. I interpret it as 'A certain environment' instead of 'EACH environment'. This way, this statement can be true without contradicting with Cro-Magnons&Neanderthals case, the Egypt&Africa example can justify it. Maybe I missed the nuance or implication in B's statement, English is my second language.

existence1943 wrote:

Blougram wrote:I don't quite see why other hypotheticals would be relevant here. Doesn't B imply that EACH environment poses a unique set of daily challenges, including the environments in which Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals lived?

Put differently, the fact that B is generic and applies to all environments implies that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals ("living in different environments") did *not* face the same daily challenges.

I think if it states 'ANY environment' it makes sense: It is stating an principle/general fact which contradicts the specific fact in the case of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. But it states 'The daily challenges with which AN environment confronts its inhabitants are unique to that environment'. I interpret it as 'A certain environment' instead of 'EACH environment'. This way, this statement can be true without contradicting with Cro-Magnons&Neanderthals case, the Egypt&Africa example can justify it. Maybe I missed the nuance or implication in B's statement, English is my second language.

Why would you interpret that as referring to a "certain environment"? "A police officer must uphold the law." Is that referring to all police officers or just a particular police officer? "An honest doctor does not recommend unnecessary operations." All honest doctors or a certain one? "An environment confronts its inhabitant with daily challenges that are unique to that environment." How about this?

mcat4life87 wrote:

existence1943 wrote:

Blougram wrote:I don't quite see why other hypotheticals would be relevant here. Doesn't B imply that EACH environment poses a unique set of daily challenges, including the environments in which Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals lived?

Put differently, the fact that B is generic and applies to all environments implies that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals ("living in different environments") did *not* face the same daily challenges.

I think if it states 'ANY environment' it makes sense: It is stating an principle/general fact which contradicts the specific fact in the case of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. But it states 'The daily challenges with which AN environment confronts its inhabitants are unique to that environment'. I interpret it as 'A certain environment' instead of 'EACH environment'. This way, this statement can be true without contradicting with Cro-Magnons&Neanderthals case, the Egypt&Africa example can justify it. Maybe I missed the nuance or implication in B's statement, English is my second language.

Why would you interpret that as referring to a "certain environment"? "A police officer must uphold the law." Is that referring to all police officers or just a particular police officer? "An honest doctor does not recommend unnecessary operations." All honest doctors or a certain one? "An environment confronts its inhabitant with daily challenges that are unique to that environment." How about this?

Good examples! It's the language that got me, English is my second language.
Note that all the examples you gave described a principle/general phenomenon, in that sense it refers to 'ALL'. I guess my feel of English is not yet there for me to spot that context.

English is my second language too, but I tend to trust my gut feeling. I have always been a voracious reader — probably since before some of you young whippersnappers were born.

Thanks to this, I tend to score in the 99th percentile on standardized English verbal tests (the GRE, Miller Analogies, etc.) with one notable exception. Yup, the LSAT.

Blougram wrote:English is my second language too, but I tend to trust my gut feeling. I have always been a voracious reader — probably since before some of you young whippersnappers were born.

Thanks to this, I tend to score in the 99th percentile on standardized English verbal tests (the GRE, Miller Analogies, etc.) with one notable exception. Yup, the LSAT.

That is inspirational! I always worry that English is going to become a huge obstacle for future my lawyer career. Yeah, VORACIOUS reading is needed.