PrepTest 149, Section 1, Question 21
Archaeologist: Our team discovered 5,000-year-old copper tools near(56 more words not shown)
The archaeologist's argument depends on(9 more words not shown)
- Ahad no trade(4 more words not shown)
- Bwere present in(5 more words not shown)
- Cwere designed to(11 more words not shown)
- Dwere the only(14 more words not shown)
- Eare not known(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Tools next to trees don't necessarily mean someone was building a canoe.
Maybe people used these tools for hunting 5,000 years ago and only later started using that kind of tool to carve canoes. The fact that more recent people used similar tools for canoe making doesn't establish what the ancient users were doing.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I'd initially look for a reason to think these tools were used for canoe making back then.
Working the answers
- A
The tools could have had trade value and still been used to build canoes. People could trade tools they also use, or acquire useful tools through trade. Having value in an exchange doesn't prevent the use that the archaeologist proposes.
- BCorrect
This raises an earlier question than the one I predicted: were the tools even here 5,000 years ago? Their age doesn't, by itself, establish how long they have been in this location. Someone could have brought old tools into the region much later.
If these tools weren't present in the region then, their discovery here wouldn't support the proposed story of local people using them to build canoes at that time. The argument needs that place-and-time connection. B doesn't establish what the tools were used for, but without it the tools can't do the evidential job the archaeologist gives them.
- C
A tool could work on pine or oak as well as birch, cedar, and spruce. Being useful on additional materials wouldn't prevent its use on the materials for these canoes. The argument doesn't need the tools to be restricted to only three kinds of wood.
- D
Canoe makers could have used these copper tools along with other kinds of tools. Finding evidence of one tool's use doesn't require it to have been the only kind available or employed. D adds an exclusivity claim the argument doesn't need.
- E
This resembles my initial concern, but it goes too far. Knowing the tools had another use wouldn't establish that they weren't also used for canoe making. A tool could be used in hunting and in carving. The archaeologist needs the proposed canoe use to be credible, not every other use to be unknown.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.