PrepTest 147, Section 2, Question 22
It is generally accepted that woodland clearings were(434 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AThe prosecution’s case(30 more words not shown)
- BThe prosecution maintains(28 more words not shown)
- CThe prosecution’s case(23 more words not shown)
- DThe prosecution’s primary(24 more words not shown)
- EThe prosecution’s case(22 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Map the second paragraph precisely. Some ethnographic evidence bolsters the accepted explanation. Other ethnographic evidence may suggest an alternative. We therefore want two bodies of suggestive evidence pointing toward different conclusions, without either conclusively settling the issue.
What we’re looking for
The distinction between other evidence and another interpretation of the same evidence matters. So does the difference between suggesting a conclusion and establishing it.
Working the answers
- A
The defense has direct evidence establishing impossibility. Our author doesn't offer a conclusive refutation of the economic model; the alternative remains a hypothesis supported by another body of suggestive evidence.
- B
This reinterprets the same physical evidence to establish opposite conclusions. The paragraph instead introduces “other ethnographic evidence.” It also uses cautious language about bolstering and suggesting, not definitive establishment of either account.
- C
This questions the prosecution's lack of direct evidence but offers no evidence for an alternative conclusion. That leaves out the second half of the paragraph's move.
- D
The dispute isn't about untrustworthy ethnographers being replaced by reliable ones. The author uses ethnographic evidence for both models. Attacking witnesses' reputations doesn't match that structure.
- ECorrect
One body of circumstantial evidence supports guilt, while other circumstantial evidence suggests innocence. That matches the economic model's evidential support followed by other evidence for a noneconomic alternative. Neither account wins simply because its evidence exists; both must be evaluated.
More Analogy questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Analogy questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.