June 1997 LSAT Section 2 Question 19

Professor Robinson: A large meteorite impact crater in a certain region was thought to be the clue to explaining t...

andreaskormusis on January 29, 2021

Why A

I feel like A makes sense as something that would be necessary for this argument since if this crater was even considered possible to be the extinction crater, it would have to actually be big enough to be the crater. Am I missing something? I get that this is an Except question, that's not why I got this wrong. Why is this B right?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

StasDAllen on February 5, 2021

You can find the explanation at the link below. I end up using that site a lot because they actually explain answers that aren't on here.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/professor-robinson-a-large-meteorite-impact-crater-in-a-certain-regio-97586.html#:~:text=Fact%20%3A%20Meteorite%20impact%20crater%20was,extinction%20of%20plant%20and%20animal.

Emil-Kunkin on October 6 at 04:31PM

The author is trying to prove that the meteor did not cause the extinction. Therefore, it doesn't matter to the author if it was or was not big enough. The author is trying to prove it was not the cause, so it being big enough would actually work against the author, not be something they would have to believe.