LSAT 139 – Section 1 – Question 23

LSAT 139 - Section 1 - Question 23

June 2013

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:29

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
PT139 S1 Q23
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
53%
167
B
2%
156
C
20%
160
D
3%
157
E
22%
164
154
164
174
 +Hardest 142.273 +SubsectionEasier

Video of JY doing this

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

Anthropologist: Every human culture has taboos against eating certain animals. Some researchers have argued that such taboos originated solely for practical reasons, pointing out, for example, that in many cultures it is taboo to eat domestic animals that provide labor and that are therefore worth more alive than dead. But that conclusion is unwarranted; taboos against eating certain animals might instead have arisen for symbolic, ritualistic reasons, and the presence of the taboos might then have led people to find other uses for those animals.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that taboos against eating certain animals may not have arisen for practical reasons, like the value of animal labor. This challenges some researchers’ view that the taboos must have had a practical basis. His reasoning is that it’s possible the taboos against eating animals arose first, and people only realized afterwards that they could use the animals for labor.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The anthropologist challenges some researchers’ hypothesis by offering an alternative that accounts for the same facts. He doesn’t claim their hypothesis is false, only that it isn’t necessarily true.

A
calls an explanation of a phenomenon into question by pointing out that observations cited as evidence supporting it are also compatible with an alternative explanation of the phenomenon
The phenomenon is taboos against eating animals, and the explanation is the practical value of animals, e.g. for labor. The anthropologist calls it into question by suggesting that the taboos could have arisen first, and then were followed by the practical usage of animals.
B
establishes that an explanation of a phenomenon is false by demonstrating that the evidence that had been cited in support of that explanation was inadequate
The anthropologist doesn’t argue that the explanation is false, only that it could be false.
C
rejects the reasoning used to justify a hypothesis about the origins of a phenomenon, on the grounds that there exists another, more plausible hypothesis about the origins of that phenomenon
The anthropologist doesn’t say that the other hypothesis is more plausible, only that it’s also plausible.
D
argues in support of one explanation of a phenomenon by citing evidence incompatible with a rival explanation
The anthropologist argues that the evidence could support an alternative explanation, not that it’s incompatible with the original explanation. His argument is that two different hypotheses are consistent with the same set of facts.
E
describes a hypothesis about the sequence of events involved in the origins of a phenomenon, and then argues that those events occurred in a different sequence
The anthropologist doesn’t argue that the events did occur in a different sequence, only that they could have occurred in a different sequence. Like (C) and (B), this is overstating the anthropologist’s belief.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply