LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 08

December 2009

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

Target time: 0:54

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
PT131 S3 Q08	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Sampling +Smpl Part v. Whole +PvW	A 7% 158 B 84% 165 C 0% 152 D 1% 156 E 8% 156	140 149 157	+Medium	146.026 +SubsectionMedium

The more modern archaeologists learn about Mayan civilization, the better they understand its intellectual achievements. Not only were numerous scientific observations and predictions made by Mayan astronomers, but the people in general seem to have had a strong grasp of sophisticated mathematical concepts. We know this from the fact that the writings of the Mayan religious scribes exhibit a high degree of mathematical competence.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math. He supports this by pointing out that the writings of their religious scribes showed a strong understanding of math.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the author draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence or an unrepresentative sample. Here, the author makes the generalization that all Mayans understood math based only on a sample of Mayan religious scribes. But the religious scribes may not be representative of the people in general.

fails to provide an adequate definition of the term “intellectual achievement”

The author doesn't define “intellectual achievement,” but he doesn’t need to. So (A) does not describe why his argument is vulnerable to criticism.

bases a generalization on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative

The author bases a generalization— that Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math— based on a sample of Mayan religious scribes that is likely to be unrepresentative.

overlooks the impressive achievements of other past civilizations

The author’s argument is only about the Mayan civilization. The achievements of other civilizations are irrelevant.

relies on two different senses of the term “scientific”

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he uses the term “scientific” clearly. Also, his conclusion is about the Mayans’ mathematical knowledge, not their scientific knowledge.

takes a mere correlation to be evidence of a causal relationship

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author doesn’t make this mistake; his argument doesn’t use causal reasoning at all.

LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 08

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 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel