LR Question 8 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There is no link between the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids.
REASONING: The buildings are similar in design. But the Egyptian buildings were used as tombs while the Mayan buildings were used as temples.
ANALYSIS: The argument ignores the possibility that the two civilizations shared the same architectural idea (how to build the pyramids) with each other even though they ended up using the buildings for different purposes.
___________
- Evidence is used clearly. It means: proof of an idea.
- The argument does try to appeal to reason: the buildings had different uses. The argument just isn’t very good at using reason.
- This isn’t circular reasoning. The argument actually provides evidence: the buildings had different uses.
- All words are precisely used. The problem is with the archaeologist’s reasoning.
- CORRECT. We would need evidence about how the two groups learned to build the pyramids, and whether they influenced each other.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
For C, why should it be viewed as a circular argument? I am still trying to wrap my head around that
I picked it because I thought it was assuming the conclusion based on the limited information given – the pyramids being being different. However, I can now understand how it does not align with the actual flaw but E does.
It says “assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove”
So let’s say I am trying to prove that “dogs are better than cats”
If I say “Dogs are obviously better than cats, therefore dogs are better than cats”
The second part is what I’m trying to prove. The first part is me just assuming it with no evidence. Hence, “assuming what you are trying to prove”.
If you assume something it means you take it as true. This can be reasonable sometimes, like we can assume that humans need to eat food, breathe air, etc. But when making an argument you can’t assume major things.
So watch for answers like C. They mean a really bad argument where you literally assume what you need to prove. They’ll sound really dumb, like “This pen is blue because it is blue”. Answers like C are almost never right because a true circular argument is really bad.