PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 8
Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe argument equivocates(6 more words not shown)
- BThe argument appeals(6 more words not shown)
- CThe argument assumes(7 more words not shown)
- DThe argument incorrectly(9 more words not shown)
- EThe argument presumes(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Using a pyramid for a different purpose doesn't prove there was no contact. One group could learn about a building form and then use it differently. I'm not saying that happened here. It's enough to see why tombs versus temples doesn't automatically rule it out.
The archaeologist is responding to a particular piece of evidence for an early historical link: both civilizations built pyramids. We can consider the differences in design and function when weighing that evidence. But the conclusion goes much further, claiming to settle that no such link existed.
Even if we granted that the pyramids tell us nothing about contact, what about other evidence? Perhaps distinctive language features or customs could provide a separate clue. Merely having language or families wouldn't prove contact; we would need a relevant connection. The point is that examining the pyramids doesn't settle what else we might find.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for that overreach. The archaeologist treats objections to one proposed basis for a link as conclusive proof that there was no link at all. Both the possible significance of the remaining similarities and the possibility of independent evidence deserve consideration.
Working the answers
- A
Using a word in two different senses could create a problem—for example, treating a claim about a household mouse as a claim about a computer mouse. Nothing similar happens with 'evidence' here. The archaeologist questions what the pyramids show; the argument doesn't turn on changing the word's meaning.
- B
The reasons concern the pyramids' design and use. The archaeologist doesn't ask us to reach a conclusion because it would feel good, be upsetting, or evoke another emotion. We can find those reasons inadequate without calling them an emotional appeal.
- C
The argument doesn't merely say there was no link because there was no link. It offers the buildings' differences as a reason. The problem is that those differences don't justify the sweeping conclusion, not that the conclusion has simply been repeated as its own support.
- D
The distinction between tombs and temples is clear enough to understand. The problem would remain even if every design difference were described precisely: different buildings don't by themselves settle whether two civilizations had historical contact. D blames unclear wording instead of addressing the reach of the evidence.
- ECorrect
To dismiss the link conclusively on this basis, the archaeologist must treat other possible evidence as irrelevant. But another source of information might support a connection even if this comparison of pyramids failed to do so.
Think of discovering a separate clue about shared knowledge or contact. The pyramid differences wouldn't automatically discredit that clue. The conclusion shuts down the entire question after considering only one proposed line of evidence. That is why granting the archaeologist's criticism of the pyramids still wouldn't be enough.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.