PrepTest 157

[lcid:3725] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

In northern Europe, archaeologists Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true Causal argument? Look for answer choice that: Rules out possible alternate cause Shows same cause, same effect Shows no cause, no effect Shows the cause and effect are not reversed If not causal argument, anticipate ways to fix problem with argument Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would strengthen argument

Answer Anticipation

On Strengthen questions, the correct answer usually helps fix a flaw in the argument. This is why experienced LSATers try to identify the problems with the argument first. Once they identify the problem, they're better prepared to find the answer choice that fixes that problem and strengthens the argument.
Causation flaws are the most common issue on these questions, so experienced test-takers look for that flaw first. This particular argument doesn't seem to be causal, so we should look for a different problem. Most experienced flaw-finders will notice that the conclusion uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a high degree of certainty. The conclusion asserts that the discovery "effectively disproves" the belief that humans' predecessors only gathered and scavenged and didn't hunt. (Put into a "positive mindset," this conclusion asserts that humans' predecessors hunted.) Usually, arguments on the LSAT don't provide nearly enough evidence to support a conclusion that is expressed with this much certainty.
To better understand this flaw, we can brainstorm why these 400,000-year-old sharpened wooden poles may not prove that humans' predecessors hunted. To start, we don't know that these tools were used by humans' predecessors. They could instead have been used by humans! (This, of course, would also disprove the assumption that humans didn't live in Europe until 200,000 years ago.) Further, we don't know that these wooden poles were used for hunting. They were found near horse remains, but that doesn't mean they were used to hunt a horse. The correct answer could fix one of these issues by, for example, showing that the poles could not be used for any purpose other than hunting.
If we can think of other reasons these poles may not prove that humans' predecessors hunted, that's great. But we shouldn't get too attached to any specific anticipation. Many things could feasibly strengthen this argument, so we should keep an open mind as we evaluate the answer choices. We can start by asking whether each answer choice shows humans' predecessors used these wooden tools for hunting and not gathering or scavenging.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Sharpened wooden poles were Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    Right off the bat, we find an answer choice that shows that humans' predecessors used these wooden tools for hunting and not gathering or scavenging. As we anticipated, this answer choice shows that the poles were not used for a purpose other than hunting. If the poles were not used by the precursors to cut or transport scavenged carcasses, it is a little more probable that the poles were used to hunt live animals. This information certainly doesn't prove that the poles were used for hunting, but it does make that conclusion a little more likely. And on a Strengthen question, that's all the correct answer needs to do.

    Since this answer choice conforms to our anticipation, we can justifiably select it and, at most, quickly glance at the remaining options.

  2. B
    Humanlike inhabitants of northern Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This answer choice has no effect on the argument. Even if humans' predecessors used stones and wooden tools more than 400,000 years ago, that doesn't mean they used stones or wooden tools to hunt animals. These tools could have been used for gathering, scavenging, or other purposes. Therefore, (B) doesn't show that humans' predecessors used the recently discovered wooden poles for hunting.

  3. C
    Homo sapiens evolved from Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This answer choice has no effect on the argument. From this information, we can validly conclude that the human species is at least 400,000 years old, as we know humans were in Europe 200,000 years ago. This answer choice wants us to use that information to conclude that humans occupied Europe much earlier than we assumed — perhaps humans were even in Europe 400,000 years ago.

    There are a few problems with this line of reasoning, however. First, it can't definitively use this information to conclude that humans occupied Europe 400,000 years ago. Humans could have evolved from their predecessors somewhere other than Europe. So, even if the human species is 400,000 years old, it may have taken humans a long time to migrate to Europe. Second, even if humans did occupy Europe 400,000 years ago, this would only weaken the argument. In that case, the wooden poles could belong to humans, not humans' predecessors.

  4. D
    The humanlike precursors of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This answer choice has no effect on the argument. Even if humans' predecessors' behavior varied based on their ecosystem, that doesn't show that predecessors settled in Europe must have hunted. Their behavior could have varied in all sorts of ways. All of the predecessors could have been exclusively gatherers and scavengers, but their sleep, communication, mating, and child-rearing practices could have varied dramatically based on their ecosystem.

  5. E
    Prehistoric Homo sapiens who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This answer choice has no effect on the argument. It doesn't show that humans' predecessors used the wooden poles for hunting because it doesn't tell us anything about humans' predecessors. This answer choice is about humans, so it's irrelevant to the argument.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion