PrepTest 139, Section 4, Question 12
Historian: The early Egyptian pharaohs spent as much(52 more words not shown)
The claim that early Egyptian(19 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- BIt is offered(22 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(25 more words not shown)
- DIt is offered(17 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why spend that much on impressive buildings? If the roads and irrigation systems needed work, I could see why someone would call the spending wasteful. But we haven't been told that they were neglected. Perhaps they were already in good shape.
The historian offers a different defense. These structures could show people how powerful the ruler was and help maintain their loyalty without sending in the military. On that account, the architecture served a political purpose. It wasn't merely spending money to build something grand.
What we’re looking for
Whether that strategy actually worked is a further question. Here, we're identifying what the claim “not mere frivolousness” does in the argument. Ask what the explanation about loyalty is meant to support. It gives us a reason to believe that the spending wasn't pointless. That makes the claim the conclusion, with the spending comparison as background and the proposed psychological effect as support.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The claim is the conclusion, and the historian supports it by describing an effect on the population's thinking: seeing the ruler's mastery could help secure loyalty. Both parts of this answer fit. It identifies the role and accurately describes the reason offered for accepting the claim.
- B
The historian isn't using the spending's purpose to establish how much was spent. Records of expenditures might support the comparison between architecture and infrastructure, but “this wasn't frivolous” doesn't do that work here. The amount is given as background; the argument explains why spending it might have served a purpose.
- C
This has the support running the wrong way. The potential to maintain loyalty without force is the reason offered for calling the spending nonfrivolous. The historian isn't first establishing that it was nonfrivolous and then using that claim to prove loyalty was maintained.
- D
The historian doesn't state a broad principle about the ultimate basis of political stability and then use Egypt as an illustration. The point is about this Egyptian expenditure. The proposed effect on loyalty helps explain that expenditure rather than supporting a general claim about all political systems.
- E
The claim is a conclusion, not a premise used to reach some further defense. And “only military utility” misdescribes the proposed benefit: the structures could maintain loyalty without military coercion. The historian does defend the spending against the charge of frivolousness, but this answer gives that defense the wrong structure and purpose.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.