LSAT 141 – Section 2 – Question 19

LSAT 141 - Section 2 - Question 19

September 2014

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:22

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT141 S2 Q19
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
1%
152
B
52%
166
C
6%
158
D
4%
159
E
36%
159
153
162
171
 +Hardest 146.882 +SubsectionMedium

A carved flint object depicting a stylized human head with an open mouth was found in a Stone Age tomb in Ireland. Some archaeologists believe that the object was a weapon—the head of a warrior’s mace—but it is too small for that purpose. Because of its size and the fact that an open mouth symbolizes speaking, the object was probably the head of a speaking staff, a communal object passed around a small assembly to indicate who has the right to speak.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the carved flint object was the head of a speaking staff. This is based on the size of the object and how it looks like a human head with an open mouth, which symbolizes speaking. In addition, a competing hypothesis — that the object was the head of a warrior’s mace — isn’t reasonable because the object is too small to be a weapon.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other applicable explanation for the object’s purpose besides that it was the head of a speaking staff.

A
The tomb in which the object was found did not contain any other objects that might have been weapons.
This is consistent with the author’s theory that the object wasn’t a weapon.
B
Communal objects were normally passed from one generation to the next in Stone Age Ireland.
This makes the author’s hypothesis less plausible. The object was found in a tomb. Speaking staves are communal objects. If, as (D) says, communal objects are normally passed to the next generation, we wouldn’t expect such objects to be found in a tomb.
C
The object was carved with an artistry that was rare in Stone Age Ireland.
The rarity of its artistry has no clear impact on the argument. Does more rarity indicate that the object is less likely to be a speaking staff? We have no reason to think so.
D
The tomb in which the object was found was that of a politically prominent person.
If anything, this might support the author’s theory. We might associate speaking staves with politics. Even if we don’t know whether speaking staves were associated with politics, that just means (D) has no impact.
E
A speaking staff with a stone head is thought to symbolize a warrior’s mace.
(E) still refers to a “speaking staff.” Even if a speaking staff might symbolize a warrior’s mace, the object would still be a speaking staff. So, (E) doesn’t help suggest that the object was not a speaking staff.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 141 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply