PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 24
Over 40,000 lead seals from the early Byzantine(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AMost of the(19 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(17 more words not shown)
- CThe amount of(23 more words not shown)
- DDuring the time(23 more words not shown)
- EDuring the time(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More than 40,000 seals remain, but that isn't automatically the number of documents originally sealed. The same lead could have served more than one document if people melted down an old seal and made another.
The passage gives that idea some support. With rare exceptions for especially important documents, a seal had served its purpose once the document was opened. Lead had value, so the author says most seals would then have been recast. I can see why repeated use would make the number of documents much larger than the number of surviving seals.
How much larger? We don't have a count of the recasting or a precise multiplier. The mechanism makes sense, but I'd welcome more evidence that it operated often enough to support 'many times' the number remaining. The exception for important documents is worth keeping in mind, although the passage already calls those cases rare.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to strengthen the argument. I don't have a precise answer predicted here. I'd look for support for the actual reuse of the seals, and then check carefully what each answer counts: lead, seals, or documents.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Most seals were attached to documents that were opened during the early Byzantine period. That supplies a step the recycling account needs: the seals actually reached the point at which they had generally served their purpose and would be recast.
What if the documents had remained unopened? Then the rule about recycling a seal after its purpose was finished would tell us little about whether recycling occurred. A addresses that possibility. It doesn't give an exact count of repeated uses, but it makes the proposed reuse during the relevant period substantially more plausible.
- B
Read what was destroyed: the documents, not necessarily the seals. Paper or another writing material could disappear while its lead seal survived. Also, 'have since been destroyed' doesn't tell us that the documents were opened and their seals recycled during the early Byzantine period. B doesn't establish the reuse on which the argument relies.
- C
Available lead is not the same as lead actually used to seal documents. A large supply might have remained unused or served other purposes. We need evidence of many sealed documents or reuse, not merely enough raw material to make seals.
- D
This caps the number of unusually important documents whose seals would be kept. It doesn't tell us how many ordinary documents were sealed or how often their seals were recycled. Even if there were relatively few important documents, we would still need support for the large amount of ordinary sealing and reuse. D's limit on one category doesn't supply that missing activity.
- E
The number of seals attached at one moment differs from the total number of documents sealed over time. Imagine ten seals being recycled for ten new documents every day. The number in use at once could stay small while the cumulative document count became large. E gives a snapshot limit without establishing how much turnover actually occurred.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.