PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 10
Archaeologist: The extensive network of ancient tracks on(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe extensive network(21 more words not shown)
- BSome researchers have(21 more words not shown)
- CSome researchers cite(23 more words not shown)
- DThe uniformity of(24 more words not shown)
- EThe ancient tracks(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Were the tracks carved out, or did repeated traffic wear them into the ground?
Picture carts traveling the same routes again and again. That gives us a way to understand the archaeologist's proposed erosion. The other researchers suggest deliberate cutting instead, pointing to the fact that the tracks have a uniform depth. The question for the archaeologist is whether that uniformity really favors the other explanation.
The reply gives erosion a stopping point. Once a groove got deep enough that the vehicles could no longer pass, people stopped using that route. If the wheel size imposed that limit, repeated use could produce tracks of similar depths without anyone carving each one to a planned depth.
What we’re looking for
For the overall conclusion, keep the larger dispute in view: how did the tracks form? The archaeologist favors erosion from wheeled vehicles. The explanation of their depth is there to defend that account.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This is the archaeologist's overall answer to how the tracks were created: they most likely resulted from erosion caused by wheeled vehicles. The discussion of uniform depth responds to competing evidence and gives us a reason to retain that erosion account. The claim stays qualified as most likely, not proven with certainty.
- B
This reports the rival explanation. The archaeologist mentions deliberate cutting in order to challenge it and defend erosion. Reporting what some researchers suggest isn't the same as stating what this archaeologist is trying to establish.
- C
This tells us why the rival researchers favor manual cutting. It identifies the evidence the archaeologist then explains differently. The overall argument doesn't aim to establish that those researchers cite uniformity; it aims to show why uniformity needn't defeat the erosion explanation.
- D
The wheel-diameter explanation is an important supporting claim. It accounts for uniform depth in a way consistent with erosion. We can ask why the author wants us to accept it: because it helps defend the broader conclusion that vehicles wore the tracks into the ground. D stops at that supporting explanation.
- E
This supplies the mechanism behind the wheel-diameter explanation: the route stops being used once its depth makes passage impossible. That helps explain why erosion would stop at a similar point. It isn't merely a stray fact, but it is still a reason supporting the author's account of how the tracks formed, not the overall conclusion itself.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.