QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Sickles at the first site were used to harvest grain, while those at the second weren’t.
REASONING: The first sickles were scratched, while those at the second site weren’t. Any sickles used to harvest grain will be scratched.
ANALYSIS: This argument makes an incorrect reversal. All sickles used to harvest grain will be scratched, but that doesn’t mean that any scratched sickle must have been used to harvest grain. I could scratch a sickle by banging it against a rock, for example.
The argument is correct that sickles at the second site were not used to harvest grain.
___________
- The conclusion was that the sickles already found were used to harvest grain. It doesn’t matter if other sickles weren’t used to harvest grain.
- CORRECT. Yes. By showing that the scratches had another cause, this answer choice weakens the conclusion.
- The argument doesn’t claim that the sickles were used only to harvest grain, and not for any other uses.
- This would strengthen the conclusion that the second sickles were not used for the grain harvest.
- How something is made doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about how it is used.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply