QUESTION TEXT: A carved flint object depicting a stylized human…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The object in the tomb was probably the head of a speaking staff, a communal object.
REASONING: Some say the object was mace, a type of weapon. But the object is too small to be a mace.
ANALYSIS: This is a question where the details matter. The speaking staff was a communal object, and it was found in a tomb.
The right answer uses both pieces of information. It says that communal objects were handed down across generations. That means they wouldn’t likely be left in a tomb.
As a result of the way this question is structured, I wasn’t able to prephrase anything. This is unusual – most modern LSAT questions can be predicted in advance. On this sort of question, where you can’t predict, the key is to instead keep an open mind and be aware of all details.
___________
- It doesn’t matter what other objects are in the tomb. But if there were no weapons, then that strengthens the argument. If there had been many weapons, then that might suggest that the object in question was also a weapon.
- CORRECT. If an object is passed from generation to generation, then it won’t be buried with someone in their tomb! This answer suggests the object in question was not a communal object and therefore not a speaking staff.
- This sounds significant. But really, what does it prove? The fact that the object was rare doesn’t help prove what it was.
- A politically prominent person might be more likely to be buried with a significant object like a speaking staff. This certainly doesn’t weaken the argument.
- The fact that something symbolizes a weapon doesn’t make it a weapon. If a speaking staff symbolizes a mace, it’s still a speaking staff and not a mace.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Eli says
I understand why B undermines the argument, however, I do not understand why E does not as well. While it is true that symbolizing does not mean that the object IS what it symbolizes, the arguer uses the fact that a head symbolizes speech as evidence that it was a speaking staff. If it turns out that evidence is false—and it instead symbolizes a mace—it undermines his evidence, and thus the argument. Can someone please explain why that isn’t true?
Colin D says
I see a lot of criticism of using outside knowledge for arriving at “other answers” but I can say the exact same thing about B being the answer and not E.
If I were to dive into B, as I did, I would say so what if they were passed down? Maybe they were passed down from one generation and THEN they buried it in a tomb. That wouldn’t weaken the argument now would it?
With E, I chose it because the stimulus was speaking directly about weapons (I missed the key word symbolizes) but what if they were wrong about it symbolizing, it could have very well been used as a weapon, they don’t know for sure.
I get that the word symbolizing is wrong, but I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that B is the correct answer. This one really got to me cause you can easily pick it apart, seemed more like a detail that the writer thought made sense to them at a time but clearly irked a lot of people.
David Panscik says
There are clearly two arguments here of arguably equal weight. The question never clarifies which argument is being queried. Argument #1 – “some archaeologists believe that the object was a weapon (not a speaking staff)” Argument #2 – “The object was probably a speaking staff (not a weapon)”.
TutorRosalie (LSATHacks) says
When you’re asked to strengthen or weaken a question, you have to pinpoint which argument is the dominant one. The dominant one is the one you’re concerned with in regards to the question stem.
In this case, your Argument 1 has already been “disproven” by Argument 2, and the argument ends on the note that Argument 2 is correct. So in this case, the two arguments aren’t of equal weight. To answer this question correctly, you only have to find the answer choice that weakens Argument 2.
Brian says
Hi,
Initially I had the answer as B due to the line of reasoning you had stated in your explanation.
With that said, I quickly retracted my answer because I felt that information regarding that flint object was background information as opposed to a part of the “argument core”, and since the question asks us which would weaken the “argument” – I felt that would void the answer choice of B. (Granted I’m correct in making the assumption that the first line was in fact back ground information and not a premise in the argument)
Would love your thoughts.
FounderGraeme Blake says
I wouldn’t really make a distinction between “background info” vs. real info. Any info can be relevant. The author says that:
1. The object was a communal object
2. It was buried in a tomb.
If an object is buried with someone then by definition it isn’t handed down from generation to generations. So B dramatically weakens the two points above.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
ari says
The term normally on the LSAT means what? “Not always”, right? The way I understand it is to mean normally, usually, generally, most of the time…so why cant we say that here. It doesn’t say “always” passed down, just “normally” and it could have been this wasn’t the norm and it was buried this time.
Love to hear on this.
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
You’re right — that is how LSAC uses the word “normally.” However, we’re looking for the answer choice that most casts doubt on the idea that the object was probably the head of a speaking staff. We’re not looking for the answer choice that completely dismantles that conclusion.
(D) has the best chance of doing that because it’s saying that most of the time (i.e. more often than not), communal items like a speaking staff wouldn’t be contained in tombs; they’d be passed down to the next generation.
Jennifer says
The correct answer was B. The first hypothesis was reject by the argument. Now the second phenomenon assembly used this head to indicate right to speak, that head was found in tomb. if we have the head passed from one generation – it weak the argument less likely.
Charles Thompson says
So, I answered B on this question but it was marked wrong and I’m only just realizing this. I’m pretty furious.
FounderGraeme Blake says
On your scored LSAT? You can contest that. Check your scoresheet to be sure of what you marked.
Eli says
I do not understand the validity of B. I think this is due to the question being poorly written and less of your reasoning (I don’t think any of the answers necessarily weaken the argument). Because the object was from the Stone Age, it has to be buried somewhere– why not a tomb? Why should the staff be in a grassy field (or any place that’s not a tomb) instead of a tomb? Perhaps the person whose tomb the staff was buried in was the last person in a long line of people to receive the communal staff. For example, I would imagine that some objects that were passed from generation to generation in Ancient Egypt were buried in a Pyramid.
FounderGraeme Blake says
Because if it’s a tomb, then the community *intended* to bury it.
You’re doing too much work for the argument. You’re supposed to be criticizing it, not helping it. Sure, maybe when the community dies they’ll eventually bury their objects. But those objects would still have spent 98% of their lifetime not being buried. Whereas most objects in tombs would be objects that are typically buried.
ahmad says
I felt that for answer choice (C), the fact that it was carved in artistry that was rare to stone age Ireland helped weaken the fact that it was the head of a speaking staff, since those types of things would most likely be community oriented and created in the time and area in which it was being used as such (a speaking staff), instead of a foreign object that has no ties to the community. i do understand how B works though. any thoughts on my theory for C?
FounderGraeme Blake says
You’re working in a ton of outside assumptions. “Rare artistry” just means the carving was particularly good for what it was. That has zero impact on the *type* of thing it was. Any object can have rare artistry.
You’re assuming it wasn’t made in Ireland, but it could just have been a particularly good Irish artist. And even if it was foreign that needn’t affect its use.
The only way to use outside knowledge is: you can assume things that *literally everyone* would agree with. People would dispute your theories about art, so you can’t assume it.