PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 5
The best explanation for Mozart's death involves the(73 more words not shown)
The claim that the fracture(16 more words not shown)
- AIt shows that(6 more words not shown)
- BIt shows that(8 more words not shown)
- CIt shows that(7 more words not shown)
- DIt shows that(4 more words not shown)
- EIt suggests that(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A skull fracture could explain Mozart's death. But finding an injury isn't the same as proving what killed someone. What if Mozart had another fatal illness? We'd need to compare that possibility with the head-injury explanation before confidently calling this the best account.
Still, I can follow the proposed sequence. The fracture could have torn veins, the bleeding could have damaged the brain, and that damage could have led to death after a delay. The partial healing seems to fit that delayed timeline: the injury wasn't simply followed by immediate death.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the partial-healing claim does in the argument. Start with the conclusion: the best explanation for Mozart's death involves the fracture. The author explicitly offers the healing as support for that explanation. I'd describe its contribution as helping with the timeline. Let's see how the answers express that role.
Working the answers
- A
Evidence that the fracture had started healing doesn't show that Mozart's death could have been avoided. We'd need information about preventing the injury or successfully treating its effects. That isn't what the partial healing establishes.
- BCorrect
This is narrower than my initial prediction, but it gets at an important part of the timeline. Healing means Mozart was alive for some time after the fracture occurred. The fracture therefore wasn't simply damage that happened to his skull after his death.
Why does that help? An injury received after death couldn't have caused the death. Showing that the fracture occurred while Mozart was alive removes that objection and makes it eligible to explain his death. The partial healing doesn't prove the full medical explanation; it supplies this particular piece of support.
- C
The passage separately describes how bleeding and dried blood can damage the brain. Partial healing of the fracture doesn't establish that this damage actually occurred in Mozart's brain. C gives the healing evidence a job it can't do: proving another step in the proposed explanation.
- D
Partial healing indicates that some time passed after the injury. It doesn't show that death happened suddenly. Be careful, though: this evidence also doesn't rule out a sudden final event later. What it establishes is time between the fracture and death, not every detail of how death occurred.
- E
A healing fracture could follow either an accident or a deliberate blow. The passage calls an accident the likely origin of the crack, but that is a separate claim. Partial healing helps place the injury before death; it doesn't tell us whether someone inflicted the injury on purpose.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.