Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 13 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT79.S04.Q19 - Bad LSAT Question or is it me?
QB1Kenobi
Live Member
the argument says that Neanderthals probably preserved their meats by smoking it, citing that burnt lichen and grass were found in many of their fireplaces, and that a fire made of these materials produces a lot of smoke, but not as much heat or light as a wood fire.
the correct answer is B. When I read the explanation, it says that B is correct because it suggests that Neanderthals used lichen and grass out of necessity rather than specifically for smoking meat. The explanation also says that the point of this argument is that Neanderthals used lichen and grass only to smoke meats.
But that is NOT how this argument is written to me. To me, the argument says that the only way Neanderthals preserved their meats was by smoking it, citing burnt lichen and grass in fireplaces, that burnt lichen and grass fire produce a lot of smoke as evidence. So I chose A, which suggests that they also used heat, which is ruled out in the last sentence in the argument.
I do not understand, for the life of me, how the main idea of this argument is that Neanderthals used lichen and grass primarily to smoke their meat, and not that smoking their meat was the only way they preserved it!
Is it me????? Every time I think I make headway on these questions, I get them wrong and it's so discouraging.
Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."
Comments
i don’t think answer B is saying that Neanderthals used Lichen and grass out of necessity to barbecue, in fact, I don’t think you should only focus on the smoking meat, that part is the archaeologist’s conclusion, which is based on his assessment that (premise) lichen and grass don’t provide as much warmth and light as burning wood, which must mean they were burning it for other reasons, such as…low-heat BBQ. But where the weakening power of B comes in, is by pointing out, hey it’s not so much they weren’t burning wood or something that provides more heat and light, it’s that there weren’t anything else around that can out-shine and out-warm our cave folks than lichen and grass
Say I see a person riding a bicycle. Say I conclude the person is probably riding the bicycle for exercise.
(B) Then you weaken my argument by saying that the only means of transportation that person has is that bicycle. Thus I can't neatly conclude it is probably for exercise.
(A) Then you strengthen my argument by saying that you saw that person driving their car to get to their job earlier that day.
Fantastic explanation
Ok...
but let's say the argument is "Billy probably exercises by biking.." and the evidence is "there is a bike in Billy's exercise room. Bikes are great for cardio, but not nearly as great for transportation as cars."
How are you concluding that the assumption here is that the only reason Billy rides his bike is for exercise, and NOT that biking is the only form of exercise that Billy does???? That's not what the argument is.
Yea.. they were burning it for the smoke. And the conclusion says they used smoke to preserve their meat. So how are y'all jumping from HOW they preserved their meat to WHAT they used lichen and grass for as the conclusion????
That jump makes no sense to me.
I think the meat preservation method (the how) might just be the author letting their imagination run a little too wild and giving us details no one asked for.
Ok, but how wild the archaeologist's imagination is running seems irrelevant given the nature of this test because that statement is the conclusion of the argument.
Right, so the point is to find an answer choice that makes it a little harder to arrive at the conclusion, right? So think about it like this, if answer B is true, then doesn’t it make it the conclusion seem more invalid/unsupported?
No it doesn't. because if the conclusion is that they used smoke for meat preservation, then A does that. If B is true, then even if there were no other materials for them to use for heat and light, that doesn't weaken the argument that they used smoke for meat preservation.
A would weaken that argument by suggesting they actually did use heat as well to preserve their meats, not just smoke.
Ok, well, those are my two cents.
and you edited in the HOW to this comment, but that's the point. The conclusion is about HOW they preserved their meats, not WHY they used lichen and grass instead of wood fires.
And the way the archaeologist seems to come to that conclusion is by assuming that since lichen and grass were found in the fireplaces, and they produce more smoke than heat or light, then that's how Neanderthals preserved their food. That they burned lichen and grass for smoke seems to be a given here because even if they didn't burn it for the smoke directly, that doesn't mean they didn't use the smoke for meat preservation, which is what the argument is trying to prove.
I am 1000% open to correction, but y'all keep telling me why B is right, but now how my thinking about this question is wrong.
I need the full dollar in this case. But thanks anyway.
"How are you concluding that the assumption here is that the only reason Billy rides his bike is for exercise, and NOT that biking is the only form of exercise that Billy does????"
Neither of those assumptions are made: "X probably did Y for Z" does not indicate that the only reason X used Y was for Z, nor that Y is the only way X chooses to/can get Z.
If I say, "Corrina probably used chocolate chips for making cookies," I am not necessarily saying that Corrina only used chocolate chips for one thing ever, just that it is likely she used them for making cookies. I am also not saying that Corrina could not ever make cookies without chocolate chips or only ever chose to make cookies via using chocolate chips, again just that she likely used chocolate chips in her cookie-making.
Returning to the original argument: The archaeologist is supposing that the grass and lichen found were used for an alternative purpose than making fires for illumination and warmth. The reason he supposes this is because grass and lichen, when burned together, do the jobs of illuminating and warming less effectively than other materials, such as wood. In addition, they also produce a great deal of smoke, which would also make them less desirable to burn compared to wood or other materials; Neanderthals probably would not have enjoyed spending night after night sleeping next to a fire emitting loads of smoke in their faces. If other, better materials were available to burn, why would the Neanderthals ever choose to burn grass and lichen? The archaeologist considers the qualities and properties of grass and lichen, particularly the smoke quality, and concludes Neanderthals likely burned grass and lichen for preserving their meats via smoking them. A strengthens this argument by indicating that other fireplaces were found nearby that used other materials better for illuminating and warming. This outrightly indicates that the Neanderthals had multiple options as to what to burn and that some of those options were better for illumination/warming than grass and lichen, which is one of the archaeologist's core assumptions. Here is a quaint way of construing A: "Neanderthals had a living room fireplace where it was found wood was used and a kitchen fireplace where grass and lichen were used." B weakens the argument by putting forward that the only thing the Neanderthals had to burn was grass and lichen, thus there is no reason to suppose it was primarily used for alternative purposes to staying warm/illumination at night; the Neanderthals had to tolerate the smoke and get by with less warmth and light because grass and lichen was all they had to burn.
Say I see a person's shower/bath. Say I see a bottle of Dawn (dishwashing soap) in the shower, but that is the only item in it. Say I conclude that the person probably uses that Dawn for bathing pets.
(A) Good quality Shampoo, Conditioner, and Body Wash were all found in another shower in the same house.
(B) The only type of cleaning product/soap this person has is Dawn (dishwashing soap).
@ahunt9618 lol, ok, you do you.
This was a tough question. With weaken questions, remember to focus on weakening the connection between the premises and the conclusion. I didn't understand this concept at first, but once I did, my performance with with weaken questions significantly improved. I think of it as making the premises less relevant to the conclusion so you now have less reason to believe the conclusion. You're telling the author that the premises they provided don't lead you straight to their conclusion.
Of note, the stimulus doesn't say that smoking was the only way they preserved meat. No language in the stimulus gives that restriction. Also, notice the author doesn't have a high level of certainty about the conclusion. He uses the word "probably." The only reason we should believe they were smoking meat is because they had a fire around that was much better at producing smoke over heat/light. That's it! The author is assuming that smoking meat is the only reason they would burn this high smoke fire. For weaken questions, it helps to focus more on the assumptions the author makes to reach their conclusion (not so much the conclusion). The right answer tends to attack an assumption the author is making. This is why you have to be careful about eliminating answers that seem out of scope at first glance for this question type.
A - You said "this suggests they also used heat." Do you mean use heat to preserve food? I would say heat would cook food, not preserve it. This answer doesn't weaken the argument. It introduces another type of fire instead of focusing on the lichen and grass fire. I can't say how this new fire relates to the argument.
B - weakens because it provides an alternative explanation. It introduces the possibility that they were using the lichen and grass fires for something else - heat and light. Lichen and grass were the best plants they had around at the time to burn for heat and light. This answer makes the fact that this fire produces a lot of smoke less significant which makes it less likely they were burning this fire specifically to smoke meat.
Answer B doesn't solely emphasize that Neanderthals used lichen and grass out of necessity for barbecuing. It rather underscores the archaeologist's conclusion, based on the premise that lichen and grass offer less warmth and light than burning wood. This inference suggests alternative purposes, possibly low-heat BBQ. Yet, it's weakened by noting that lichen and grass might have been the only available options for warmth and light.