PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 5
Sickles found at one archaeological site had scratched(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- ASome sickles that(14 more words not shown)
- BThe scratches on(17 more words not shown)
- CSickles at both(14 more words not shown)
- DAt the second(10 more words not shown)
- EThe sickles found(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Harvesting grain scratches the blades. Is that the only way to scratch them?
Maybe a sickle was used to cut something else. Maybe it was used in a fight. Those are possibilities, not facts about either site, but they show why scratches alone don't identify the work a tool performed.
The second site's sickles are a different matter. We're told harvesting grain always scratches a blade. If those blades aren't scratched, they weren't used to harvest grain. That part follows from the rule we're given. The first site's conclusion doesn't: scratched blades could have acquired their scratches another way.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a realistic possibility that undermines the argument. Give us an alternative source of the scratches at the first site. We can accept the rule about harvesting grain and still challenge the claim that these particular tools were used for it.
Working the answers
- A
Which sickles are we explaining? The ones already found. A concerns other sickles that haven't been found at the first site. If those blades are unscratched, the rule would tell us they weren't used to harvest grain. But that doesn't settle how the scratched blades we did find were used. Don't let a fact about additional tools replace the tools named in the conclusion.
- BCorrect
The scratches came from something other than harvesting grain. That is exactly the possibility the argument overlooks. The author used the scratches as evidence of grain harvesting, but they could have been produced by another activity. B doesn't need to identify that activity precisely. Nor must it prove the sickles were never also used for grain: it undermines the inference by taking away the scratches as a reliable basis for identifying that use.
- C
Ritual use doesn't exclude practical use. A sickle could be used in a ceremony and also used to harvest grain. Unless we learn that a ritual explains the scratches or otherwise conflicts with the claimed use, this additional purpose doesn't undermine the conclusion.
- D
This concerns other tools at the second site. The author concludes that the second site's sickles weren't used to harvest grain, not that nobody there harvested grain with anything. Using other tools fits perfectly well with that conclusion.
- E
Who made the sickles doesn't tell us how they were later used. The same maker could supply tools that different people used for different purposes. We need information about the scratches or the use of these tools, not the identity of their manufacturer.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.