PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 8
John of Worcester, an English monk, recorded the(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AAn aurora borealis(16 more words not shown)
- BChinese sources recorded(13 more words not shown)
- COnly heavy sunspot(18 more words not shown)
- DBecause it is(33 more words not shown)
- EJohn of Worcester's(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The timing fits. John records unusually large sunspots, and five days later people in Korea see northern lights. We're told that sunspot activity is typically followed by northern lights after an average of five days. That makes the second report a sensible piece of support for the first.
Could there still be another explanation? Perhaps northern lights can occur for reasons that have nothing to do with the sunspots John described. If so, the Korean observation might be a coincidence. I'd also want the historical account and its date to be reliable; a mistaken date could make the apparent match less impressive.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to strengthen the connection. One route would be to rule out another way the Korean display could have happened. Another would be to make the supporting account more reliable. We aren't required to prove every detail of John's report. The conclusion only says that the Korean sighting helps confirm it.
Working the answers
- A
This allows northern lights without significant recent sunspot activity. That leaves open the alternative explanation we were considering instead of ruling it out. It doesn't help establish that the Korean display supports John's report of sunspots five days earlier.
- B
The argument isn't claiming that John was the first person to observe sunspots. Much older Chinese records can exist whether his particular report is accurate or inaccurate. Earlier observations don't strengthen the connection between the two observations in 1128.
- CCorrect
Korea's latitude now matters: seeing northern lights that far south requires heavy sunspot activity. The Korean display therefore gives us a reason to believe substantial sunspot activity occurred, which fits John's report of unusually large sunspots.
That is stronger support than the timing alone. We no longer have just two events that commonly occur in sequence; we have a display that requires the kind of substantial activity consistent with John's observation. It still doesn't independently verify every detail of his account, but it makes the corroboration better.
- D
This describes the unusual viewing conditions John's reported sighting would require. It doesn't independently establish that those conditions occurred, and it doesn't explain why the Korean display supports the report. Possible conditions for seeing sunspots aren't additional confirmation that John saw them.
- E
A drawing gives us more of John's account, not independent evidence that the account is accurate. Being the earliest illustration would make it historically interesting, but the conclusion concerns whether the Korean observation corroborates his sighting. Neither the drawing's existence nor its possible priority strengthens that connection.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.