Premise: The author (archaeologist and his/her field) have all that they need from the mosaic + the needs of future archaeologists using the mosaic.
Subtly assumption: The author is slightly assuming that he his the only user or beneficiary of the mosaic.
1) When I think of PSA, I think what is the underlying assumption that the author is making that the argument currently is subpar or can be poked at.
2) We need to find AC that clears potential questions or answers them.
A) A is saying that, because this is an archaeological matter, only archaeologists have a say. This clears the assumption - even if he and his field his benefitting they have reason to claim the continued placement or the removal of the mosaic; in this case continued placement.
This eliminates other considerations such as, maybe the mosaic was taken for a museum or art gallery and not to be studied. The author is making the claim that ONLY archaeologist gets that deciding factor.
@jrm98 author said "the mosaics should have stayed there." and ends the stimulus with his reasoning on why they should have stayed there with "future archaeologists studying the site might be misled by there abscene," this is the only reasoning he uses to justify why they should not have been removed he does not talk about anything other justifications on why they should of been left there. AC A stated that the only considerations that bear upon the question of whether mosaics should have been removed are archaelogical. If this is assumed then this justifies his argument because he only justifies keeping them there on the basis of an archaeological standpoint and the stimulus assserts that archaeological standpoints are the only considerations that should be beared in this question of whether they should taken or left.
im a little confused about A being correct. i understand the logic behind it. where im stuck is when you draw A out doesn't it bridge the P-->C backwards? considerations (when deciding to move figure) --> archaeological - because of 'the only (being sufficient condition). shouldn't the correct answer be something like: archaeological considerations ---> move mosaics
Very important things to worry about in an LSAT prep program. Can you verify if Mr Fat Cat actually looked self-satisfied while licking his paws, as he does after eating?
@rickyrivas94 I did the same thing. I think this is where reading a question stem and being able to identify the type of question it is asking is critical. It makes sense in an "assumption" style of question where the question stem says we are to "assume" that the answer choices are correct, that an answer could use more "extreme" language. My brain doesn't seem to want to work that way, though.
I picked C, because even though the stim doesn’t say that “materials” are important, we could very logically assume that knowing what type of material something is is very important for those future archaeologists, so the mosaics should not be removed because future archaeologists might need it and we dont want to mislead them.
@Binchtastic So did I! But this doesn't necessarily help the argument as it could also be the case that the materials are apparent when the mosaic is moved, C never says only in the original location. To your point about materials, maybe the argument is claiming that archaeologists would be misled about whether Zeugma had mosaics at all, not what they were made of. We just don't know! However, if we assume that only archaeological considerations determine whether mosaics should be removed, the author has checked that box with the premises, and this creates a direct link between premises and conclusion, explicitly justifying the conclusion that the mosaics should have been left there.
Ugh got it right then second guessed in the blind review. Am i the only one who finds blind reviewing sometimes causes overthinking the question and answer choices?
@qag3677226 I hesitantly will say yessss... how I think about this is what bridges the gap with the premises and would trigger the conclusion. But I say that hesitantly because like JY says, the correct answer choice isn't always totally closing the gap, PSA is a version of strengthen questions, so the correct answer can be on a scale of strengthening. Hope this helps, if not I'm sorry for further confusion 😂
The video didn't address that one of the concerns is that information can be lost, so it is true that CURRENTLY we know the archeological considerations derived from the Ms being in their location (ie material), but perhaps later future As who are studying the Ms wont have the information - we already explicitly stated that the fact that we have it now doesn't mean future As will have it later - which means it can wreck their study -- and therefore should be kept.
I listened to the explanation on why C is wrong twice more and this is what I understand now. What the QS is asking is: How does A relate to B based on a rule that makes A relevant to B
So, we are looking for the implied rule NOT for another reason that the rule should apply. The way I'm imagining the structure/ shape of this is
IF A
And A is X, Y
Then B
If A then B is the shape of the rule - which is the answer we need to be looking for
What AC C does here is add a Z. Its basically saying:
IF A
And A is X,Y, Z
Then B
But that isn't what the QS is asking - for more support that the RULE should be applied to this situation
What the QS is asking is WHY the existing As of X/Y in this situation apply to B -- here : what is the rule, how is it relevant?
Now if we were wondering about application, AC C is actually more ideal answer choices A
But A, even though not ideal (how the heck do you know its true? What an insane sweeping generalization -- so so weak) actually does answer the question. A would have been an easier choice if it read something like "archeological considerations are a factor in moving stuff" the fact that it said "only" REALLY threw me off, but even though it seems to be offering information that isn't apparent, it still creates a Rule (IF A then B) which explains why the XY of A is relevant to B
@dlpaltiel770309 I also think it's noteworthy that C is assuming the materials are the main focus. There can be other things important to archaeologists than just the materials used. I think AC C has too many assumptions. But it was my backup answer haha
@dlpaltiel770309 The 'only' also threw me off at first, but it actually makes a lot of sense and is what makes A the correct answer. The archaeologist's argument pertains solely to the archaeological value of the mosaics. When reading the argument, we might think to ourselves "well never mind the archaeological value, what about the cultural significance, what about x, y, z, etc". That is precisely the point. The rule or principle that best justifies the archaeologist's narrow argument is one that eliminates all other potential considerations.
i just kick the answer choice up in the stim and see if it still holds the conclusion to be true which has been working for me so far. the other explanations are confusing as hell and i start doubting myself more when i listen to them
I am still confused, and I hope someone can help me answer my question...
Does answer choice A really support the conclusion that "mosaic should not be moved"?
I mean, "The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.", does it really mean that it is okay to move it? In my opinion, this option should be in the middle of the spectrum, which is equivalent to saying nothing...
Imagine this, "Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation", so should I buy or not? I have no idea.
Or this more similar, "The only factor that affects whether this antique should be kept indoors is archaeology", does this really support the conclusion that "keep it indoors"?
So what on earth make it sense to justify the reasoning??
In my opinion, you have to take AC with the premises that are offered in the stimulus. Stim says that because we have the info we need, and leaving the artifacts in the original place helps future people (who dont have our info) not be confused (have inaccurate info), so we shouldnt move the artifacts. But regardless, there are other reasons to move, maybe other people should have the right to see it, maybe we have a moral duty to preserve mosaics. Whatever the reasons may be, 'A' helps justify the reasoning by saying, "the only thing that matters when deciding to move a mosaic, are archeological considerations." in other words, the other reasons for why we might want to move the mosaic are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is archeology.
"Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation" seems insufficient, but if the premises say something like, "macroeconomic regulation has allowed a promising environment to buy government bonds," then would it not be prudent to buy the bonds? Yes, its not perfect situation, there can be other considerations, but again, thats what A does, it limits such considerations to a world where only the macroecon regulations matter, thats what PSAs can do, make you choose the best possible option, may not be the perfect one, but its much better than the others.
(I didn't expect to write this much, i apologize for the yapping, it helps me improve my understanding as well :D)
In fact, after doing Drill for a week or two, I found that the logic of this question seems to be much more reasonable. A can indeed support reasoning.
Imagine a scene (I personally prefer to use specific examples, sorry) There are a large number of demonstrators in front of the museum divided into two factions. One faction claims "Hey, you should put the mosaic back", and the other faction says "No!". Both factions have their own reasons, for culture, history, national sentiment, etc. Now the museum director comes out, "Hey friends, shut up, I just want to hear the speech of the archaeology students." At this time (according to stmi) an archaeology student comes out and says "We have obtained all the archaeological knowledge of this mosaic, and future archaeologists will make mistakes without our records", which obviously enhances the reasoning.
Thank you for your explanation, which made me re-examine this question. I wish you good learning!
put simply - the conclusion follows the premise that the artifacts were moved because of flooding, however, the archeologist disagrees because they should be kept there for archeological reasons. hello??? what about the flooding?? archeological reasons aren't the only important considerations. A captures this disconnect perfectly.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
101 comments
Do you guys watch the video and read the explanation or just one?
I love these questions
Nice! And 12 seconds early!
I truly did not understand what A was trying to say- C made the most sense to me:/
@amara I felt that too, I was deciding between A and C but I chose A because C didn't sound like a rule to me
By far my worst Q type. I like these but my avgs dont.
To be honest I didn't even know what A meant
@MRod
Conclusion: the mosaic should be left there.
Premise: The author (archaeologist and his/her field) have all that they need from the mosaic + the needs of future archaeologists using the mosaic.
Subtly assumption: The author is slightly assuming that he his the only user or beneficiary of the mosaic.
1) When I think of PSA, I think what is the underlying assumption that the author is making that the argument currently is subpar or can be poked at.
2) We need to find AC that clears potential questions or answers them.
A) A is saying that, because this is an archaeological matter, only archaeologists have a say. This clears the assumption - even if he and his field his benefitting they have reason to claim the continued placement or the removal of the mosaic; in this case continued placement.
This eliminates other considerations such as, maybe the mosaic was taken for a museum or art gallery and not to be studied. The author is making the claim that ONLY archaeologist gets that deciding factor.
I didn't understand the phrasing of A </3
wait i have been getting every single one of these right!!!
@jrm98 author said "the mosaics should have stayed there." and ends the stimulus with his reasoning on why they should have stayed there with "future archaeologists studying the site might be misled by there abscene," this is the only reasoning he uses to justify why they should not have been removed he does not talk about anything other justifications on why they should of been left there. AC A stated that the only considerations that bear upon the question of whether mosaics should have been removed are archaelogical. If this is assumed then this justifies his argument because he only justifies keeping them there on the basis of an archaeological standpoint and the stimulus assserts that archaeological standpoints are the only considerations that should be beared in this question of whether they should taken or left.
this is making my head hurt
im a little confused about A being correct. i understand the logic behind it. where im stuck is when you draw A out doesn't it bridge the P-->C backwards? considerations (when deciding to move figure) --> archaeological - because of 'the only (being sufficient condition). shouldn't the correct answer be something like: archaeological considerations ---> move mosaics
Zeugma balls lol
How do we know the archaeologist is woman?
@TheSovereign how do you know the speaker is a man?
@SavannahMiller We don't but in English it is customary to use male pronouns when the gender is unknown.
Very important things to worry about in an LSAT prep program. Can you verify if Mr Fat Cat actually looked self-satisfied while licking his paws, as he does after eating?
@TheSovereign ???? no it is not lmfao
I saw, "only," for answer choice A and did not choose it. Do words in AC's matter? such as ONLY, or NEVER?
@rickyrivas94 I did the same thing. I think this is where reading a question stem and being able to identify the type of question it is asking is critical. It makes sense in an "assumption" style of question where the question stem says we are to "assume" that the answer choices are correct, that an answer could use more "extreme" language. My brain doesn't seem to want to work that way, though.
@rickyrivas94 i had the exact same question, a remnant from logical reasoning question i think. is there a way to identify this?
I actually eliminated A at first cuz i thought it was too powerful, then i read everything else and had to go with it
The wording of the question really threw me off.
as a field archaeologist, i love getting archaeology questions lol
I picked C, because even though the stim doesn’t say that “materials” are important, we could very logically assume that knowing what type of material something is is very important for those future archaeologists, so the mosaics should not be removed because future archaeologists might need it and we dont want to mislead them.
@Binchtastic So did I! But this doesn't necessarily help the argument as it could also be the case that the materials are apparent when the mosaic is moved, C never says only in the original location. To your point about materials, maybe the argument is claiming that archaeologists would be misled about whether Zeugma had mosaics at all, not what they were made of. We just don't know! However, if we assume that only archaeological considerations determine whether mosaics should be removed, the author has checked that box with the premises, and this creates a direct link between premises and conclusion, explicitly justifying the conclusion that the mosaics should have been left there.
Ugh got it right then second guessed in the blind review. Am i the only one who finds blind reviewing sometimes causes overthinking the question and answer choices?
I didn't see the Cost benefit analysis at the beginning which is why I got it wrong
Hey, for rule of thumb, do the correct answers tend to directly connect the premise to the conclusion unlike this one?
@qag3677226 I hesitantly will say yessss... how I think about this is what bridges the gap with the premises and would trigger the conclusion. But I say that hesitantly because like JY says, the correct answer choice isn't always totally closing the gap, PSA is a version of strengthen questions, so the correct answer can be on a scale of strengthening. Hope this helps, if not I'm sorry for further confusion 😂
Sometimes I get the answer by finding 4 wrong answers. Even though I didn't like A, it had to be the right answer.
Same and honestly it works a majority of the time
@logangallagher8 Did the same thing. they all felt off, but A felt the least off
I'm confused what's wrong w C --
The video didn't address that one of the concerns is that information can be lost, so it is true that CURRENTLY we know the archeological considerations derived from the Ms being in their location (ie material), but perhaps later future As who are studying the Ms wont have the information - we already explicitly stated that the fact that we have it now doesn't mean future As will have it later - which means it can wreck their study -- and therefore should be kept.
I listened to the explanation on why C is wrong twice more and this is what I understand now. What the QS is asking is: How does A relate to B based on a rule that makes A relevant to B
So, we are looking for the implied rule NOT for another reason that the rule should apply. The way I'm imagining the structure/ shape of this is
IF A
And A is X, Y
Then B
If A then B is the shape of the rule - which is the answer we need to be looking for
What AC C does here is add a Z. Its basically saying:
IF A
And A is X,Y, Z
Then B
But that isn't what the QS is asking - for more support that the RULE should be applied to this situation
What the QS is asking is WHY the existing As of X/Y in this situation apply to B -- here : what is the rule, how is it relevant?
Now if we were wondering about application, AC C is actually more ideal answer choices A
But A, even though not ideal (how the heck do you know its true? What an insane sweeping generalization -- so so weak) actually does answer the question. A would have been an easier choice if it read something like "archeological considerations are a factor in moving stuff" the fact that it said "only" REALLY threw me off, but even though it seems to be offering information that isn't apparent, it still creates a Rule (IF A then B) which explains why the XY of A is relevant to B
^^^^ Arguably the most important point of this lesson
@dlpaltiel770309 I also think it's noteworthy that C is assuming the materials are the main focus. There can be other things important to archaeologists than just the materials used. I think AC C has too many assumptions. But it was my backup answer haha
@dlpaltiel770309 The 'only' also threw me off at first, but it actually makes a lot of sense and is what makes A the correct answer. The archaeologist's argument pertains solely to the archaeological value of the mosaics. When reading the argument, we might think to ourselves "well never mind the archaeological value, what about the cultural significance, what about x, y, z, etc". That is precisely the point. The rule or principle that best justifies the archaeologist's narrow argument is one that eliminates all other potential considerations.
i just kick the answer choice up in the stim and see if it still holds the conclusion to be true which has been working for me so far. the other explanations are confusing as hell and i start doubting myself more when i listen to them
yeah this explanation is useless...
#help
I am still confused, and I hope someone can help me answer my question...
Does answer choice A really support the conclusion that "mosaic should not be moved"?
I mean, "The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.", does it really mean that it is okay to move it? In my opinion, this option should be in the middle of the spectrum, which is equivalent to saying nothing...
Imagine this, "Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation", so should I buy or not? I have no idea.
Or this more similar, "The only factor that affects whether this antique should be kept indoors is archaeology", does this really support the conclusion that "keep it indoors"?
So what on earth make it sense to justify the reasoning??
In my opinion, you have to take AC with the premises that are offered in the stimulus. Stim says that because we have the info we need, and leaving the artifacts in the original place helps future people (who dont have our info) not be confused (have inaccurate info), so we shouldnt move the artifacts. But regardless, there are other reasons to move, maybe other people should have the right to see it, maybe we have a moral duty to preserve mosaics. Whatever the reasons may be, 'A' helps justify the reasoning by saying, "the only thing that matters when deciding to move a mosaic, are archeological considerations." in other words, the other reasons for why we might want to move the mosaic are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is archeology.
"Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation" seems insufficient, but if the premises say something like, "macroeconomic regulation has allowed a promising environment to buy government bonds," then would it not be prudent to buy the bonds? Yes, its not perfect situation, there can be other considerations, but again, thats what A does, it limits such considerations to a world where only the macroecon regulations matter, thats what PSAs can do, make you choose the best possible option, may not be the perfect one, but its much better than the others.
(I didn't expect to write this much, i apologize for the yapping, it helps me improve my understanding as well :D)
Your explanation is great and not verbose at all.
In fact, after doing Drill for a week or two, I found that the logic of this question seems to be much more reasonable. A can indeed support reasoning.
Imagine a scene (I personally prefer to use specific examples, sorry) There are a large number of demonstrators in front of the museum divided into two factions. One faction claims "Hey, you should put the mosaic back", and the other faction says "No!". Both factions have their own reasons, for culture, history, national sentiment, etc. Now the museum director comes out, "Hey friends, shut up, I just want to hear the speech of the archaeology students." At this time (according to stmi) an archaeology student comes out and says "We have obtained all the archaeological knowledge of this mosaic, and future archaeologists will make mistakes without our records", which obviously enhances the reasoning.
Thank you for your explanation, which made me re-examine this question. I wish you good learning!
put simply - the conclusion follows the premise that the artifacts were moved because of flooding, however, the archeologist disagrees because they should be kept there for archeological reasons. hello??? what about the flooding?? archeological reasons aren't the only important considerations. A captures this disconnect perfectly.