LSAT 109 – Section 1 – Question 20

LSAT 109 - Section 1 - Question 20

December 2000

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

Target time: 1:52

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
PT109 S1 Q20	+LR	Except +Exc Weaken +Weak Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 7% 165 B 18% 162 C 51% 170 D 18% 164 E 5% 163	158 167 175	+Hardest	148.877 +SubsectionMedium

Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the coast of Norway do not represent a description of the painters’ diets. This is because the author believes the painters needed to eat the sea animals in the waters around Norway in order to travel to the islands, and no paintings clearly show those sea animals.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the paintings don’t depict sea creatures. (Just because they don’t unambiguously depict sea creatures doesn’t imply that they don’t show sea creatures.) The author also assumes that the painters needed to cross the waters to get to the islands. (Maybe the painters originated on the islands?) The author also assumes that the painters needed to eat sea creatures.

Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.

This shows that the painters’ current diets did not need to include sea creatures. So the lack of sea creatures in paintings does not prove that the paintings don’t represent the painters’ current diets.

Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.

This raises the possibility that sea creatures might have appeared in paintings that are no longer around. So, the cave paintings could have been a description of the current diets of the painters, even if the paintings that remain no longer depict sea creatures.

The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.

The author never denied that the paintings could show land animals. The author’s position is that we’d expect to see sea creatures, too. So, the presence of land animals in the paintings doesn’t undermine the author’s argument.

Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.

This raises the possibility that the painters did not need to eat sea creatures, contrary to the author’s assumption. The painters might have been able to travel to the islands while eating preserved meat from land animals.

The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.

This shows that the author’s assumption that the painters needed to cross the islands and eat sea creatures is wrong. The painters could have been done by inhabitants of the islands who may not have needed to eat sea creatures.

LSAT 109 – Section 1 – Question 20

LSAT 109 - Section 1 - Question 20

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel