LSAT 152 – Section 2 – Question 15

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 15

November 2018

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:27

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
PT152 S2 Q15
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
69%
164
B
2%
154
C
4%
155
D
21%
158
E
4%
154
146
155
163
 +Harder 147.463 +SubsectionMedium

Additional note to (A). With (A) being true, the premises now indicate clearly that the artifact gold originated from the somewhere in the network (large underground deposit) but not any specific node (mine or riverbeds). In fact, knowing that there are additional nodes (riverbeds) reduces the likelihood of the hypothesized node (mine) being the source.

A scientific team compared gold samples from several ancient artifacts with gold samples from an ancient mine in western Asia. The ratios of the trace elements in these samples were all very similar, and they were unlike the trace-element ratios from any other known mine. It is therefore likely that the gold in the artifacts was dug from the ancient mine.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the gold in the ancient artifacts was likely dug from a certain ancient mine. This is based on the fact that ratios of trace elements in the gold in the artifacts is very similar to the ratios of those elements in gold from the mine, and no other known mine has those same ratios.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the gold in the artifacts is likely to have come from a source that shares the same ratios of trace elements. The author also assumes that there are no other potential sources for the gold besides a mine.

A
The ancient mine tapped into a large underground deposit that also supplied nearby riverbeds with significant quantities of gold.
This provides a potential alternate source of the gold in the artifacts. The gold might have come, not from the ancient mine, but from nearby riverbeds. These riverbeds likely have the same element ratios as that of the ancient mine, because the gold is from the same deposit.
B
The ancient mine may have at one time been operated by the same civilization that was responsible for most of the ancient artifacts.
If anything, this might strengthen the argument by making the connection between the artifacts and the mine more plausible.
C
The ancient mine was first operated many centuries before the artifacts were constructed.
This might strengthen the argument by eliminating the possibility that the ancient mine wasn’t in existence when the artifacts were made.
D
Ancient gold artifacts were often constructed from gold taken from earlier artifacts.
This suggests the gold in the artifacts might have been taken from earlier artifacts. But this doesn’t affect the original source of the gold; it could have been dug from the ancient mine and simply used in various artifacts over the years.
E
Much of the gold dug from the ancient mine in western Asia was transported to faraway destinations.
If anything this might strengthen the argument by suggesting the gold in the mine could have spread far and been used to make various items, potentially including the artifacts that we’re talking about.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply