Reading comp PrepTest 147 · Section 3 · Question 7

Incorrect. (Paragraph 2) This answer sums up Paragraph 2, but the Author goes on to show that these doctrines/laws have resulted in a "painful irony" (Line 30) and thus fail to achieve their goal. Since this answer is a rejected solution, it's incorrect.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point that we anticipated right after reading the passage and find an answer that aligns with it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
When an RC passage falls into a common pattern, we want to use what we know about that pattern to help us understand the structure and main point. Here, the passage introduced a problem and then considered a few solutions.

The problem? The looting and exporting of cultural artifacts from Mali (and similar places), resulting in the loss of cultural knowledge (Lines 9-12). From there, the Author highlights doctrines/laws that are meant to combat this (Paragraph 2), but that these have a "painful[ly] iron[ic]" outcome—in committing crimes, people are more likely to hide these artifacts and further prevent the culture from reclaiming this knowledge (Line 30).

Paragraph 4 highlights the Author's solution, via a supposition—Mali steps in and regulates/taxes the excavation and exportation of these objects, allowing information about them to be captured before they're sold abroad (Lines 41-51). While not ideal (Lines 52-53), this would be better than what happened (Lines 55-56).

Since the Author's solution to a problem is usually the main point of a passage, and the Author's method of resolving a paradox frequently fits the same purpose, the idea for a flexible solution that isn't a blanket ban (a la the UNESCO doctrine and related laws) is the main point, serving as the Author's solution that addresses the paradox introduced by the existing solution. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 30-34; Lines 54-55) The Author highlights a problem in Paragraph 1 before exploring a solution (UNESCO doctrine/laws, Paragraph 2) that results in a "painful irony"—they lead to the loss of knowledge they seek to preserve. She then goes on to describe an alternative regulatory system that involves education, recording and regulation, and taxation that would "have been better" than what actually happened (Lines 55-56, in a leading question that is clearly meant to imply the answer is that it would have been better). As such, the Author is advocating for a more flexible policy than the blanket policies outlined in Paragraph 2, making this the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
We're going to specifically talk about answer choice (C) here. The LSAT loves playing off of language that's used colloquially in a different manner than is technically correct. We tend to use "unique" to mean "different" in conversation, but it really means "one of a kind." It's a word that the LSAT has tested several times! If you come across similar words that are used in a manner that you're not used to, be sure to make a note of it so that you can treat it correctly in the future!

Incorrect. (Lines 41-51) The Author sets out a general framework for what she believes would work to preserve cultural knowledge from archaeological artifacts in Paragraph 3. There's no indication that she believes this would work only for Mali, and other countries would need to come up with their own "unique" solution, as this answer states. Unique is a very strong word that means "one of a kind," and there's nothing in the passage to back that up.

Incorrect. (Lines 51-54) The Author acknowledges that such excavations would be the best of the options listed, but in arguing for her alternative that involves recording, registration, and taxing, it's implied she doesn't believe that was necessarily practical. In fact, it seems as if it might have led to the same painfully ironic outcome as the blanket ban—people trying to illegally excavate and export items!

Incorrect. (Lines 30-34) The passage notes that it's the prohibition against export and requirement for repatriation that does harm, not the idea that cultural artifacts are owned by the state. A state could allow the exportation or waive the requirement for repatriation if it owned the items!