LSAT 120 – Section 4 – Question 05

LSAT 120 - Section 4 - Question 05

October 2005

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:10

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
PT120 S4 Q05
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
5%
155
B
89%
162
C
2%
156
D
3%
152
E
1%
151
130
140
150
 +Easier 146.628 +SubsectionMedium

Sickles found at one archaeological site had scratched blades, but those found at a second site did not. Since sickle blades always become scratched whenever they are used to harvest grain, this evidence shows that the sickles found at the first site were used to harvest grain, but the sickles found at the second site were not.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The phenomenon is that sickles found at one site had scratched blades, and sickles found at a second site did not. The author hypothesizes that the sickles from the first site were used to harvest grain, and the sickles from the second site were not. This is because sickle blades used to harvest grain always become scratched.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because the sickle blades found at the first site were scratched, they must have been used to harvest grain. In extension, the author assumes there is no other function for sickle blades that could have resulted in the scratches. In other words, the author assumes that harvesting grain is necessary for scratched sickle blades.

A
Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades.
This does not affect the argument. The author’s hypothesis is only an explanation for “this evidence” (i.e., the blades that were actually found)—blades that were there but not found are outside the scope of the argument.
B
The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that because the sickle blades at the first site had scratches, the scratches must have been from harvesting grain. Remember: harvesting grain is sufficient for scratched sickle blades, not necessary.
C
Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain.
This does not affect the argument. (C) does not imply anything about whether the sickle blades from the first site were used to harvest grain in addition to serving ritual purposes.
D
At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain.
This does not affect the argument. We already know that the sickle blades at the second site were not used to harvest grain. It is reasonable to assume that other tools were used for harvesting, as the sickle blades were not.
E
The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site.
This does not affect the argument. The argument is concerned with the function of the sickle blades, not with who made them.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply