Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 16

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require these forms of art to be the "dominant" forms in this period just forms that would involve war if war were present.

Incorrect. The argument assumes that the switch to agricultural society led to the development of war, but that doesn't mean that the war was "always" over land. It could have been primarily over land with some other causes leading to certain wars. Or it could have been primarily over agricultural resources—the harvest not the land.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Pre—Neolithic era — No art depicting warfare has been found
Neolithic era — Agriculture first developed
Neolithic era to present — Art depicting warfare has been found for all civilizations
Conclusion — Moving to agriculture caused warfare to develop

Answer Anticipation:
There are three elements in this stimulus that suggest common flaws, two of them directly tied to each other.

First, the conclusion is causal—"as a result of." It states that a switch to an agricultural society caused warfare to develop. When the conclusion is causal you should always check to see if it's based on a correlation. Here it is—agriculture was first developed during the Neolithic period and warfare first started showing up in art at that time. This correlation doesn't prove the causality in the conclusion. Maybe the development of warfare led to the switch to an agricultural society. Maybe another phenomenon caused both. Any answer highlighting alternative causes (specifically ruling them out) would serve as a correct answer.

The other two are related to each other—the stimulus uses known artworks as a proxy for the presence of war. It's possible that before the Neolithic period there was war but people just didn't depict it in their art. Or they did depict it in their art but all of that art has been lost to the ages. Any answer highlighting the assumption that we have a representative sample of pre—Neolithic art or that a society that had war would depict it in their art would be correct here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the second assumption we noted. The argument assumes that there was no war before the Neolithic period because there's no war depicted in art assuming that any war would be depicted in art. If there was warfare before art depicted it (the negation of this answer) then the argument falls apart. This answer is thus the correct one.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument on the LSAT uses indirect evidence it's usually assuming a link between it and whatever it's trying to prove. Here the argument uses art as indirect evidence for the presence of war and the correct answer dealt with that assumed connection.

Incorrect. This answer is way too strong and broad. First, the stimulus discusses warfare developing as a result of a single advance, not warfare resulting from every advance. Second, there's no indication that the development of warfare was inevitable, just that it did happen.

Incorrect. Other things depicted in art are out of scope of the argument.