PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 17
Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma,(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AThe only considerations(15 more words not shown)
- BArchaeologists studying a(14 more words not shown)
- CThe materials used(18 more words not shown)
- DArchaeological sites from(13 more words not shown)
- EThe removal of(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why were the mosaics removed? Perhaps someone wanted to display them in a museum or preserve them somewhere else. The archaeologist has given us archaeological reasons to leave them in place, but are those the only reasons that should count?
We already had enough information to draw our archaeological conclusions. Removing the mosaics therefore wasn't needed for that purpose. It might also mislead future researchers who visit the site without our records: they could find no mosaics and get the wrong picture of what was originally there. That is a real concern if protecting future archaeological study is the priority.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion goes further, though: the mosaics should have been left at the site. To support that recommendation, I'd want a rule giving the archaeological concern the weight it needs. Something like “Don't take an action that hinders future archaeological study” would connect the stated reason to the recommendation. Let's see how the answers handle that gap.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Only archaeological considerations bear on whether removal was appropriate. That removes the competing kinds of reasons we wondered about, such as a benefit from displaying the mosaics elsewhere. We are left assessing the action on the terms the archaeologist supplied: no need to remove the mosaics to obtain the information, and a risk of misleading future researchers.
A isn't worded exactly like the rule I predicted. It strengthens by making archaeology the relevant basis for the decision, rather than directly ordering us to avoid every possible research obstacle. That gives the offered archaeological reasons much more force in supporting the recommendation.
- B
Recognizing that the site was flooded doesn't tell future researchers that mosaics were removed from it. They could correctly understand its flooding history and still be misled about which artifacts originally stood there. B doesn't connect the risk described to a reason removal should not have occurred.
- C
The argument says we already had all the information needed for our archaeological conclusions. Knowing that the materials are easy to identify in the original location doesn't show why removal was wrong. The specific concern is future researchers misunderstanding the mosaics' absence, not present researchers being unable to identify their materials.
- D
This reduces the concern that motivates the recommendation. If removal rarely misleads later archaeologists, the danger the author cites appears less pressing. We need to strengthen the case for leaving the mosaics, not make the potential archaeological harm look less likely.
- E
Little environmental impact doesn't establish the archaeological case against removal. It may remove one possible objection to taking artifacts away, but it gives us no reason to preserve their original locations for future researchers. The environmental question doesn't supply the missing support here.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.