PT79.S4.Q19 - archaeologist: neanderthals, a human-like species

LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
edited July 2017 in Logical Reasoning 13286 karma

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Comments

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited July 2017 7468 karma

    For A, are we certain that those fireplaces that are in close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass were actually used by the Neanderthals? Isn't it possible that those fireplaces were used by non-Neanderthal cultures (maybe even thousands of years later)? That possibility renders answer A irrelevant, or, at the very least, it shows that answer A assumes that Neanderthal cultures used those fireplaces in close proximity to the grass and lichen fireplaces.

    LSAC is playing with us with the phrase "close proximity".

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    @DumbHollywoodActor said:
    For A, are we certain that those fireplaces that are in close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass were actually used by the Neanderthals? Isn't it possible that those fireplaces were used by non-Neanderthal cultures (maybe even thousands of years later)? That possibility renders answer A irrelevant, or, at the very least, it shows that answer A assumes that Neanderthal cultures used those fireplaces in close proximity to the grass and lichen fireplaces.

    LSAC is playing with us with the phrase "close proximity".

    I'm not sure I like that game they are playing. Haha

    Any suggestions on how to avoid being trapped by stuff like this in the future?

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited July 2017 7468 karma

    I think the key to getting this, and almost all Weaken and Strengthen questions, is to understand/focus/intensely study what the method of reasoning is. I would advise in your Blind Review doing so from now on. Too often, students think of Blind Review as merely a second chance to try to get the question correct rather than as an opportunity to PRACTICE all the discrete elements of the LSAT.

    Specifically, this argument's method of reasoning is an attempt to provide an explanation (Nenanderthal's (N's) probably used burnt lichen and grass to smoke meat in order to preserve them) of a phenomena (archaeologists have found that Some N fireplaces have burnt lichen and grass, which produces a lot of smoke but not as much heat or light as wood). So to weaken this hypothesis, answers must either provide an alternative explanation or evidence that makes the explanation less likely.

    With this framework, the fact that answer A makes no mention of "Neanderthals" ought to give you pause, since the hypothesis/explanation is specifically about Neanderthals.

    The other issue is that the stimulus's conclusion is fairly weak (note the "probably") and, therefore, would need a fairly strong statement (something that categorically denied the possibility of using burnt lichen and grass for preserving meat by smoking it. Even if we were to assume that Ns used the "close proximity fireplaces", it's still possible that Ns probably preserved meat by smoking it.

    Hope this helps.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    Just as an aside, why do LSAT writers seem to have such a penchant for dinosaurs, neanderthals, and meteorites?

Sign In or Register to comment.