PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 12
Yang: Yeast has long been known to be(61 more words not shown)
Campisi counters Yang's argument(1 more words not shown)
- Asuggesting that an(8 more words not shown)
- Bquestioning the truth(6 more words not shown)
- Cdenying the truth(11 more words not shown)
- Dpointing out that(11 more words not shown)
- Ecalling into question(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
They used something to make bread rise. How do we know that something was yeast?
A leaven is a substance used to make bread rise. Yeast is one example, and the historical evidence tells us leavens were used in 1200 B.C. But those two facts don't identify which leaven people used then. There might have been other options.
That's exactly Campisi's objection. The evidence could be accurate and Yang's conclusion could still be unproven. Knowing that people had a member of a category doesn't tell us they had the particular member Yang names.
What we’re looking for
We're asked how Campisi counters the argument. I'd describe it as pointing out that Yang's evidence doesn't establish the conclusion. The response accepts that leavens could have been used then while questioning whether that tells us yeast was one of them. That's the distinction I want an answer to capture.
Working the answers
- A
Campisi isn't helping Yang support the conclusion with better evidence. Campisi gives a reason to doubt whether the stated evidence is enough. No replacement body of historical evidence is offered, and the response doesn't endorse the conclusion.
- BCorrect
The presumption is that the leavens mentioned in the old evidence can be identified as yeast. Yang treats evidence of leavens as evidence of this particular leaven. Campisi challenges that identification by pointing out that other leavens could have been known then.
- C
Campisi does consider Yang's reason: evidence that people used leavens. The response explains why that reason leaves another possibility open. Also, finding an inference unconvincing isn't the same as establishing that its conclusion is false. Yeast might have been known then; Yang just hasn't shown it.
- D
A possible alternative isn't a more strongly supported contrary conclusion. Campisi doesn't establish that yeast was unknown in 1200 B.C., or that another leaven was definitely the one used. The point is that the evidence leaves the identity unsettled. D turns that uncertainty into support for the opposite conclusion.
- E
Campisi doesn't challenge whether the historical evidence really mentions leavens. That would attack a premise. Instead, Campisi accepts that starting point for the sake of the discussion and questions the step from leavens to yeast. B describes that unstated identification, not a dispute about the evidence itself.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.