LSAT 134 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: We should have left the mosaics in the archaeological site that was going to be flooded.

REASONING: We didn’t need the mosaics for archeological reasons, and there were archaeological reasons to leave the mosaics: future archaeologists can’t find them now.

ANALYSIS: The archaeologist is very self-centered. There might have been other, non-archaeological reasons to take the mosaics. Maybe it would be nice to let people look at them in a museum.

The correct answer eliminates all non-archaeological reasons. If we’re only considering archaeological reasons, then the archaeologist is right.

___________

1. CORRECT. The archaeologist has shown there was no archeological reason to take the mosaics, and there was an archaeological reason to leave them. So if archaeology provides the only reasons, then the argument is good.
2. Future archaeologists might be able to tell whether the site was flooded. But they won’t be able to look at the mosaics, because we took them. That was the archaeologist’s point.
3. The archaeologist wasn’t talking about what mosaics are made of. His point was that if we remove the mosaics, future archaeologists might not realize there ever had been a mosaic at the site.
4. This weakens the argument. It implies that future archaeologists might not be misled.
5. The archaeologist was arguing that future archaeologists might be confused. He didn’t mention the environment.