PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 9
Robin: Archaeologists can study the artifacts left by(44 more words not shown)
Their statements commit Robin and(5 more words not shown)
- Athe distinction that(9 more words not shown)
- Bit is reasonable(12 more words not shown)
- Cany evidence other(22 more words not shown)
- Dthe distinction that(16 more words not shown)
- Estudying a culture's(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Durable objects might tell us that people planned to stay in one place. But what if their objects fell apart because durable materials weren't available?
Robin wants to use artifacts to distinguish nomadic cultures, whose people move from place to place, from sedentary cultures, whose people stay settled. We might initially imagine looking for things associated with travel or permanent homes. Robin's proposed clue is more specific: whether objects were made to last or be discarded quickly.
Kendall questions that clue. A settled community could have access only to materials that don't last. Its short-lived objects could reflect what people had to work with, rather than an intention to keep moving.
What we’re looking for
The disagreement question asks us to isolate that dispute. Robin treats durability as a reasonable basis for inferring the culture's way of life; Kendall points to another explanation that makes the inference doubtful. They aren't debating whether nomadic cultures exist or whether archaeology matters.
Working the answers
- A
Kendall doesn't reject the distinction between nomadic and sedentary cultures. The objection is to the proposed way of telling them apart. Saying this evidence may not answer a question is different from saying the categories in the question are illegitimate.
- BCorrect
Robin's broader claim is that artifacts' intended durability can help determine whether a culture was nomadic or sedentary. That supports treating nondurable artifacts as a reason to infer a nomadic culture. Kendall objects that the artifacts might instead reflect the available materials.
So Robin accepts the reasonableness of this inference, while Kendall gives a reason to reject it. We aren't mechanically turning Robin's last sentence around; we're reading it within Robin's stated proposal to distinguish the two kinds of cultures using their artifacts.
- C
Neither speaker settles what other evidence could conclusively establish. They might agree that evidence about homes, travel, or something else could help. The exchange only gives us their conflict over the proposed clue from artifacts' durability.
- D
They don't discuss how important the distinction is. Both could consider it very important and still disagree about whether these objects provide good evidence for making it. Importance and evidentiary value are separate questions.
- E
Kendall needn't regard artifacts as useless. They might reveal plenty about available materials, for example, while failing to establish whether the people moved around. An objection to one use of artifacts doesn't amount to denying that artifacts can tell us a great deal.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.