PrepTest 109

Incorrect. This answer suggests that the cave painters's diet consisted of land animals, and so you wouldn't expect to see fish in the paintings if the paintings were of the diet. That expectation is only present if the islanders were traveling back and forth and needed to eat fish; this answer suggests they instead just ate the meat on the island.

Incorrect. If the cave paintings that remain aren't a complete set, then we can't draw any conclusions about the entirety of them based on this subset. They could be just a small number of the total paintings, and thus unlikely to represent the entirety of the diet, thus weakening the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Predominant theory — Northern cave paintings were of what the painters were eating

Conclusion — That theory is wrong
Support — If the painters were traveling to/from the islands, they would have needed to eat fish, but there are no clear paintings of fish

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's work through the question stem. It's asking us to find answers that weaken the argument against the predominant theory. That theory is the "diet" theory and the argument against it is the author's—which makes sense as we're generally tasked with weakening the main point not an opposing point.

That argument says the predominant theory is wrong—in other words the paintings aren't of the painters's diet. Why not? Because to make the trip back and forth from the island they would have had to eat fish but there are no "unambiguous[]" paintings of fish.

This leads to two big questions—Is that condition on the premise ("if they were to . . . ") met and did the painters travel to and from the islands or did they stay on the islands once they arrived? Such qualifications/conditionals are generally important to note on these questions. And even if they did travel back and forth are there (or were there) images that could represent fish even if they're not "unambiguous" or clear? Words such as "unambiguously" tend to denote certainty or opinion and so we need to pay attention to them to see how they factor into the logic.

Let's look for answers that play into either

Answer Explanation:
Without tying the land animals to the diet of the islanders this answer doesn't have any impact on the argument. If the islanders ate land animals then this supports the predominant theory. If they didn't then this supports the rebuttal. Without knowing we can't say what impact this has on the argument. Compare this with (A) which specifically connects the land animals to the diet.

Key Takeaway:
Both of these questions we asked during the anticipation step are derived from common elements that are relevant on LSAT questions. The question about traveling to and from the islands was suggested by the qualified/conditional nature of the premise supporting the conclusion—it applied if something were true. Such qualifications are frequently key to finding correct answers. And the second came from the adverb (—ly word) "unambiguously"—while a bit weird these words do tend to be a focus of the test. They generally show certainty or opinion and both are key to LSAT arguments.

Incorrect. If the islanders could preserve meat much better than others at the time, then they may have been able to make the long journey without needing to eat fish. They could have had land animal jerky the whole ride. As such, fish wouldn't be expected to be depicted in the paintings if those paintings were of their diets.

Incorrect. If the cave paintings were done by people who ate land animals and they painted what they ate, then they wouldn't be painting fish, which matches the observations. This answer thus provides support for the predominant theory, weakening the argument against it.