LR Drill Set 14, Question 7
Treasure hunter: In general, archaeological artifacts found on(97 more words not shown)
On the evidence of their(19 more words not shown)
- Awhat constitutes an(2 more words not shown)
- Bin what sense,(12 more words not shown)
- Cwhether treasure hunters(10 more words not shown)
- Dwhether maritime law(11 more words not shown)
- Ewhether antique shipwrecks(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Rescuing a ship in danger and recovering objects from an old shipwreck don't immediately sound like the same situation.
The treasure hunter gives us an exception to the usual rule against privately owning artifacts from public property: risk your life rescuing a ship in peril, and you may keep the cargo you salvage. Then the hunter applies that exception to ancient wrecks. I want to know whether recovering those objects really meets the exception. Calling the work a rescue doesn't establish that it is one.
My first thought is to distinguish a ship currently in trouble from one already lying on the ocean floor. The archaeologist's reply is more specific: these wrecks have stabilized, and the treasure hunters themselves pose the danger by destroying evidence as they remove saleable objects. That challenges the hunter's account of what the expedition accomplishes.
What we’re looking for
The disagreement question asks for a claim on which the speakers take opposing sides. My rough prediction is that they disagree about whether this rescue rule entitles treasure hunters to take cargo from these wrecks. We should match the reasons they actually give, though. My own objection cannot substitute for the archaeologist's stated objection.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker disputes whether the recovered objects count as archaeological artifacts. They disagree about the treasure hunters' justification for taking them. A debate over the definition of an artifact would concern a different issue.
- BCorrect
This points to the disagreement underneath our broader prediction about applying the rule. The treasure hunter describes the cargo as needing to be saved from oblivion. Leaving it underwater supposedly supplies the danger that makes the work a rescue. The archaeologist responds that the wrecks are stable and that the only danger comes from the people taking things. So they disagree about what peril, if any, the wrecks face apart from the hunters themselves.
B is more specific than the prediction, but it captures both speakers' positions. We should accept that better match instead of demanding that the answer repeat our wording.
- C
The treasure hunter claims the work risks human lives. The archaeologist doesn't deny that. Saying a shipwreck is stable isn't saying a dive is safe. The archaeologist's objection concerns danger to the wreck and its evidence, not danger to the divers.
- D
This is tempting if we stay attached to the initial distinction between a sinking ship and a sunken one. But the archaeologist doesn't claim that maritime law can never apply to a ship that has sunk. The reply challenges this justification for removing cargo from these stabilized wrecks. It doesn't settle every possible application of maritime law.
- E
Neither speaker argues that public waters should be treated as private property. Their dispute concerns what treasure hunters may do with artifacts from these wrecks. The archaeologist rejects the claimed rescue justification, not the description of the location as public.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.