PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 5
Archaeologist: A large corporation has recently offered to(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe ownership of(11 more words not shown)
- BAny restoration of(14 more words not shown)
- CNo one should(10 more words not shown)
- DOnly those with(17 more words not shown)
- EThe risk of(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Restoring an ancient site could make it easier to visit and understand. But what kind of restoration are we getting? Imagine a historically important arena turned into a theme park. My first concern would be whether the company is preserving the place or replacing it with entertainment.
The next sentence addresses that concern: the restoration will follow the best current theories about the site's appearance at the civilization's height. That is reassuring about the plan's historical basis. It doesn't settle whether we should carry it out.
The archaeologist gives a different objection: there is still evidence we haven't examined. Restoring the site could interfere with learning from what is there. But why must that concern outweigh letting the public see a reconstruction? Perhaps the remaining evidence could change our understanding; perhaps the display has substantial educational value. The argument needs a way to resolve that tradeoff.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that justifies rejecting the offer. Look for a rule giving preservation of unexamined evidence priority over displaying our present understanding. That connects the archaeologist's actual reason to the recommendation, rather than relying on my earlier concern about commercialization.
Working the answers
- A
Funding a restoration doesn't establish that the corporation would own or control the site. Even if business ownership would be objectionable, we haven't established that this offer creates it. More importantly, the archaeologist's reason concerns unexamined evidence, which this ownership rule doesn't address.
- B
The most ancient period and the civilization's height need not be the same period, so this might give someone a different objection to the restoration. But we aren't told they differ in this case. Nor does the principle explain why unexamined evidence justifies rejecting the offer. It doesn't supply the archaeologist's missing priority.
- C
This objects to judging which period counts as a civilization's height. Since the restoration uses such a judgment, C could challenge that feature of the plan. But the archaeologist doesn't base the rejection on the impropriety of that judgment. The stated reason is the unexamined evidence. C doesn't explain why preserving that evidence should take precedence.
- D
We don't know that the people involved lack a true concern for the site's history. A corporation could fund a restoration out of sincere interest, and the archaeologist's unexamined-evidence concern could still apply. We can't assume bad motives to make this principle justify rejection.
- ECorrect
This supplies the priority the argument needs. The unexamined portions may contain evidence relevant to future theories about the site. E says the risk of losing that evidence should outweigh the advantages of displaying theories we already have.
That explains why following today's best theory isn't enough: a restoration based on current knowledge could put future discoveries at risk. The rule directs us to preserve that opportunity even when a public display would be useful. It therefore supports rejection for the archaeologist's stated reason.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.