PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 9
Early pencil leads were made of solid graphite(43 more words not shown)
The information above most strongly(6 more words not shown)
- AThe world's only(13 more words not shown)
- BIn the 1790s,(19 more words not shown)
- COne of the(26 more words not shown)
- DGovernment-sponsored research frequently(11 more words not shown)
- EEven today, all(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
France lost access to its usual pencil material, then supported research into another way to make pencil leads. I can see how that problem could push people to invent something new.
The old method used solid graphite from Cumberland. The new method uses powdered graphite. We should not turn that into a claim that graphite is no longer mined; the difference given here concerns how the pencil lead is manufactured.
What we’re looking for
My first broad takeaway is that wartime shortages can encourage innovation. But the question asks which answer is most strongly supported, so we need to stay close to this particular episode. What did the loss of access to Cumberland mean for France's ability to obtain suitable material? Let's see which answer the account actually supports.
Working the answers
- A
Cumberland need not be the world's only suitable deposit. Another deposit could exist somewhere France could not reach or did not know about. Losing access to a usable source is different from proving no other source exists anywhere.
- BCorrect
This is the best-supported explanation of why France responded by developing the powdered-graphite method: its government did not know of an accessible source of suitable solid graphite sufficient for its pencil needs.
The account connects the research with the wartime loss of access. B keeps that connection limited to what France knew it could obtain. It does not require Cumberland to be the only deposit on Earth, or France to contain no graphite of any kind.
This is support, not absolute proof of the government's entire state of knowledge. There could be other reasons to improve a manufacturing process. But B fits the obstacle and response described much more closely than the broader claims in the other choices.
- C
The passage says war cut off France's access to Cumberland graphite. It does not say a dispute over graphite caused the war. A consequence of a conflict is not automatically its cause.
- D
We have one example of government-sponsored research producing a new method. That cannot establish how frequently such research yields major benefits. Even if this particular invention was valuable, we would need more than this one case to support D's general claim.
- E
Nothing tells us that every pencil today contains graphite from Cumberland. The account describes developing a method while France lacked access to that source. It gives us no basis for a universal claim about where modern pencil material comes from. We also should not infer that no modern pencil could use Cumberland graphite; the passage does not establish that either.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.