LSAT 154 – Section 2 – Question 16

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 16

September 2017

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:32

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
PT154 S2 Q16
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
4%
155
B
72%
163
C
8%
159
D
4%
153
E
12%
159
132
147
162
 +Medium 144.659 +SubsectionEasier

Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area deposited their rubbish in pits near their dwellings. Some claim that the rubbish found in those pits provides great insight into the possessions these people had, but this rubbish by itself actually tells us relatively little about those possessions; among other reasons, the pits have been subject to erosion over long periods of time, with destructive effects on the rubbish within.

Summarize Argument

The archaeologist concludes that the rubbish found in pits near old dwellings reveals little about the possessions of the people who once lived there. She supports by saying that the pits have been eroded over time, damaging the rubbish inside.

Notable Assumptions

The archaeologist assumes that the erosion has damaged the rubbish in the pits so much that it no longer provides much information about the possessions of the people who lived there. She also assumes that any rubbish that didn't decay or erode is either gone or else is not enough on its own to reveal much about the people’s possessions.

A
The pits contain certain tools not found in dwellings or at other above-ground locations.

This weakens the argument because, if the pits contain tools found nowhere else in the dwellings, then they do provide some great insight into the possessions that the people had.

B
Scavengers routinely salvaged the most durable items from the rubbish pits.

This addresses the assumption that items less affected by erosion are either gone or else don't provide much insight. If scavengers took the most durable items and only the most eroded ones are left, it makes sense that the pits may not reveal much about the people's possessions.

C
The soil surrounding the rubbish pits was sometimes removed for the manufacture of bricks.

This is irrelevant because we don’t know if removing the soil around the pits would have had an effect on the rubbish inside the pits.

D
The pits in which the rubbish was deposited had earlier been used by this group of people as burial sites.

The argument only focuses on the pits being used for rubbish and what that rubbish shows about the people's possessions. Previous uses of the pits are not relevant because we don't know how, if at all, they would have affected the rubbish.

E
Certain types of items were never discarded by members of this group of people.

The argument only addresses what the items that are in the rubbish pits reveal about the people’s possessions. While there are likely many other items that are not in the pits that also provide information, they are not relevant to the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 154 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply