PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 5
A natural history museum contains several displays of(72 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- ASome of the(18 more words not shown)
- BThe displays that(23 more words not shown)
- CMore of the(13 more words not shown)
- DThe newer displays(10 more words not shown)
- EThe humidity in(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could we make the displays last longer by changing their surroundings? The animal skins are deteriorating because of low humidity and heat from the lights. Replacing damaged specimens would be one response, but reducing the damage in the first place sounds useful too. The cooler lamps offer a way to do that without leaving visitors looking at dark displays: they give off just as much light as the hotter ones.
What we’re looking for
Since heat contributes to deterioration, less heat gives us a reason to expect some displays to last longer. That's the limited conclusion I'd look for in this most-supported question. We haven't made the skins indestructible, and we haven't solved the low-humidity problem. We have identified one source of harm that the museum could reduce while maintaining the light.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Replacing the older displays' hotter tungsten lamps with cooler compact fluorescent lamps reduces a stated cause of damage. That supports expecting some of those displays to last longer. The answer doesn't promise that the skins will stop deteriorating entirely, which would go beyond the evidence.
- B
We know the fluorescent lamps give off less heat, but this answer compares many of them with only a few tungsten lamps. We aren't given the number of lamps or how their combined heat compares. Several cooler lamps might collectively produce a lot of heat; the passage doesn't settle this particular comparison.
- C
Older displays use one type of lamp and newer displays use another. How many displays are in each group? We aren't told. There could be many older displays and only a few newer ones, or the other way around. The difference in lighting doesn't establish which group is larger.
- D
We addressed heat, not humidity. The newer displays could still be damaged by dry conditions even though their lamps produce less heat. Reducing one cause of deterioration doesn't establish that a different cause can no longer affect them.
- E
We know that low humidity is damaging some skins now. We don't know how today's humidity compares with the humidity when the displays were installed. Conditions could have stayed the same while their effects accumulated. A present problem doesn't establish a historical decrease.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.