PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 20
Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe projectile found(18 more words not shown)
- BThe people who(14 more words not shown)
- CThe skeleton of(16 more words not shown)
- DOther North American(23 more words not shown)
- EClimatic conditions in(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How much can one unusual weapon tell us about where people came from?
The projectile doesn't resemble ones found in the nearest part of Eurasia. That's interesting, but the archaeologist goes further: the first Eurasian settlers probably came from a more distant part. Why must the weapon's design identify their place of origin? Perhaps someone developed it after arriving, or obtained it through contact with other people. Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts we can assume.
What we’re looking for
The settlement date and the mastodon's date place the discovery in the relevant period. They don't, by themselves, establish that the weapon came from a distant Eurasian region. For the weaken question, I'd look for something that makes this projectile less convincing as evidence for that particular origin. I don't yet know exactly what fact the choices will supply.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The projectile doesn't resemble weapons from the distant parts of Eurasia either. That makes the evidence much less helpful in selecting a distant Eurasian origin over a nearby one. The argument points to a mismatch with the nearby region, but A extends that same mismatch to all of Eurasia.
This doesn't prove the settlers came from somewhere outside Eurasia. It leaves the weapon's design unexplained. Perhaps it was developed after settlement; perhaps some other account is right. We don't need to settle that question to see that the projectile supplies less support for the archaeologist's proposed distant origin.
- B
Being nomadic tells us that people moved around, but it doesn't tell us their routes or what weapons they used. To make this undermine the argument, we'd have to add a story in which people from the nearby region obtained this kind of projectile and brought it to North America. B doesn't supply those steps. Movement alone doesn't resolve the design's connection to the settlers' origin.
- C
A similar projectile in a bear gives us another instance of that weapon in the same place and period. It doesn't tell us where the weapon design or the people who used it came from. Repeating the discovery doesn't break the inference from that discovery to a distant Eurasian origin.
- D
This tends to support a connection with the distant Eurasian regions. Other objects from North America resemble objects from those regions at the same time. That doesn't prove where the first settlers came from, but it adds evidence consistent with the archaeologist's conclusion. Different artifacts can bear on the same proposed origin; they aren't irrelevant merely because they aren't this projectile.
- E
More hospitable conditions might give people a reason to move to North America. But this describes conditions before the Ice Age, rather than shortly before its peak, when the passage places settlement. It doesn't give us the comparison for the relevant period or explain the projectile's design. A possible attraction of the destination at an earlier time leaves the argument's inference about the settlers' starting point largely untouched.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.