LR Question 19 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: A carved flint object depicting a stylized human head…
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.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
Also, even if it is true that the communal objects are normally passed from one generation to the next, that doesn’t preclude it from being buried in the tomb. What if the culture/group made a new staff, or this particular person really liked this particular staff etc etc. Maybe the usage of a speaking staff ended (I doubt they use speaking staves in Ireland anymore…) and he was buried with the last one this culture/group ever used. There could be plenty of reasons why the staff could still end up buried in the tomb. You can say I’m doing too much mental gymnastics here, but it really doesn’t feel like B) weakens the argument very strongly in comparison to E).
I addressed E in my previous response to you, but please let me know if you have more questions regarding E!
As for alternative explanations as to why a speaking staff may still be in a tomb, sure, you could find a number of reasons as you detailed. But LSAT weakening questions aren’t about completely destroying the argument; they’re about making it less likely. Answer B does this by introducing a general norm that contradicts the conclusion’s assumption about the object’s purpose.
For example, say I find a child’s bicycle abandoned in a park. Because it’s small and has training wheels, I conclude that it was probably left behind by a kid who outgrew it. And then you tell me, actually, in this area, children’s bicycles are normally handed down to younger siblings or neighbors instead of being abandoned.
Yes, this doesn’t prove that this particular bike wasn’t abandoned. You could come up with a number of reasons why that may still be the case. But it does make my original explanation less likely. Normally allows for exceptions, but if we are introducing a general norm that is usually the case, that significantly weakens the argument.
Sorry for the disorganization –I could not post this reply as a reply to my previous comment at the time since it was still under review!
Thanks for your reply. While I do understand that weaken questions need not destroy the argument, only make it less likely, I really liked your bike example here, and it does help me see B as weakening the the argument more strongly than I previously felt that it did, though I’m still not quite sure I agree that it “significantly” weakens, since the strength of the author’s argument still plays a role:
As a somewhat jejune example, if I say “I see dark storm clouds on the horizon, so it probably will rain soon” and you say “It normally doesn’t rain here” even if that is true and does make my conclusion less likely, the evidence can be strong enough that the statement about what is normal doesn’t significantly weaken the conclusion.
You’re right that “significantly” weakens was probably a bit of an overstatement on my part as the question only asks for “most weakens”, but I just want to add on that it’s completely okay to not feel satisfied by an LSAT answer. You’re not always going to 100% agree with the correct answer, and that’s fine! The most important part is that you learn how they arrived at that answer, and the logic behind it, and from learning that process and logic, you’re able to get to the right answer in most other questions of the same type. Which it seems like you were able to here!
Note: I know you have another comment in the queue regarding E which I’ll get to as soon as I have time, just wanted to make a note here that students don’t need to force themselves to always 100% agree with every answer. As long as you can understand and explain the rationale behind it, it’s okay to move on. I think there’s a common misconception that you’re always going to have an “aha” moment with every correct answer you initially disagree with, but that’s not always going to be the case.
Thank you Aaminah
I immediately understood how B) weakened the argument, but the usage of “normally” was my main concern. It turns B) from strongly weakens to just weakens in my opinion, because it tells us there are exceptions; what if this is one of those exceptions? Ultimately I chose E…
When we look at E), while yes, it would still be a speaking staff, the question is which most “weakens the argument” not “weakens the conclusion” and the argument being made is that “an open mouth symbolizes speaking, so the object was probably “the head of a speaking staff”. If we take it for a fact that a speaking staff with a stone head is thought to symbolize a warriors mace, this tells us that the stone head likely symbolizes the head of a mace, instead of a speaker, and the argument being made is thus weakened. We aren’t told that an object with a representation of a person speaking is the only way to know that something is a speaking staff, so it’s possible some other aspect of the staff lets us know it is a speaking staff, and his deduction about the stone is wrong.
I see your concern about the word “normally” in B, but even with that qualifier, B still significantly weakens the argument. The argument assumes the object was a speaking staff based on its open mouth design, but B introduces a strong reason to doubt that. If communal objects were typically passed down rather than buried, then this object being found in a tomb suggests it was not a speaking staff. Even though “normally” allows for exceptions, the argument does not account for this general pattern, making it less likely that this particular object was a speaking staff.
E, on the other hand, doesn’t undermine the connection between the open mouth and speaking that leads the author to believe it’s a speaking staff. Instead, it introduces an alternative symbolic meaning (warrior’s mace) for the speaking staff itself. But the argument does not depend on what a speaking staff symbolizes – it depends on the reasoning that an open mouth suggests that the object was a speaking staff in the first place. It can still symbolize a warrior’s mace while being a speaking staff. Symbolizing a warrior’s mace does not actually make it a warrior’s mace. So E at best introduces an alternative interpretation of the symbolism of a speaking staff, but it does not disrupt the reasoning that led to the conclusion.
I’m not entirely sure how the distinction between weakening the argument vs. conclusion helps E here. An argument consists of all premises and conclusions, so a conclusion must necessarily be considered when weakening an argument. In any case, as you said, the argument here is what the open mouth symbolizes, and based on this they say it’s a speaking staff. E only refutes the symbolism part, but still says it’s a speaking staff. So E actually agrees that the author came to the right conclusion about the what the object actually is, which doesn’t seem to weaken the argument as a whole very much.
Thank you for your reply Aaminah.
“I’m not entirely sure how the distinction between weakening the argument vs. conclusion helps E here…. E actually agrees that the author came to the right conclusion about the what the object actually is, which doesn’t seem to weaken the argument as a whole very much.”
“E, on the other hand, doesn’t undermine the connection between the open mouth and speaking that leads the author to believe it’s a speaking staff. Instead, it introduces an alternative symbolic meaning (warrior’s mace) for the speaking staff itself.”
E doesn’t actually agree that the author came to the right conclusion about what the object actually is. It agrees with the author that the stone was part of a speaking staff, but it doesn’t necessarily agree about the symbolic meaning of the stone itself, which is the entire point of the passage: to make an argument for what the stone is/represents, not what it is a part of. That the object is likely the head a speaking staff is the author’s conclusion –not that the object is a speaking staff (it’s only the stone).
The author’s argument is: [too small to be a mace head (belief some archeologists hold)]+[open mouth symbolizes speaking] -> [probably head a speaking staff].
And E says that: [speaking staff with stone head thought to represent warrior’s mace] -> logically this suggests that -> [stone head of a speaking staff represents the head of a mace]
E weakens the argument by introducing an alternative symbolic meaning for the stone with an open mouth itself, and not just the staff. It tells us that the stone head specifically is what gives this alternative symbolic meaning, and therefore gives an alternative meaning to the stone itself, weakening the author’s argument and conclusion about the nature of the stone by suggesting that it is representative of the head of a warrior’s mace, not necessarily a person speaking (though these are not mutually exclusive, and it could even represent both).
Furthermore, we are told that a speaking staff with a stone head (as opposed to one without a stone head) represents a mace, and an open mouth represents speaking, but it does not necessarily have to be a stone. The greater specificity gives stronger support for its use as a representation as mace head, as opposed to use as the representation of a speaker, which could be carved of wood or bone for example. We are also told that even some other archaeologists (though we don’t know what proportion they represent) think this was the head of a warrior’s mace too, which lends support to the idea of this stone’s relation to a mace head, since a representation can naturally be smaller than the actual object and the authors main objection to this hypothesis was the size of the mace.
Ultimately, E doesn’t significantly weaken the argument (since its the stone could still represent both a mace head AND a speaker), but in my opinion it still definitively does weaken the argument by introducing a very plausible alternative. When compared to B which had the “normally” qualifier, I considered them to both be weakly weakening the argument, with E coming out ahead by a small margin. I am still really struggling to see how this isn’t the case/where I went wrong in my thinking unfortunately.
I believe your confusion, at least in part, comes from a misidentification of the argument’s structure and what E is saying. It doesn’t actually undermine the reasoning in the stimulus, even though it may seem like it. This is going to be a long response, so I’ve tried to make it digestible.
Breaking Down the Argument’s Structure
1. Premise: The object is too small to BE the HEAD of a warrior’s mace.
2. Premise: An open mouth symbolizes speaking.
3. Conclusion: The object was probably THE HEAD of a speaking staff.
The main point is to conclude the object is the head of a speaking staff rather than the head of a weapon. The reference to the open mouth is the evidence/reasoning used to reach that conclusion.
What E actually says
“A speaking staff with a stone head is thought to symbolize a warrior’s mace.”
The stimulus argues that this specific stone head (with an open mouth) is probably the head of a speaking staff. E merely states that a speaking staff with a stone head (which would include the one in the stimulus) is thought to symbolize a warrior’s mace.
This doesn’t actually weaken the argument. Because E is talking what speaking staffs with stone heads may mean. Our debate, however, is what object this particular stone head actually belonged to. Let’s take E as a premise and integrate it into the argument.
1. Premise: The object is too small to be the [stone] head of a mace.
2. Premise: It has an open mouth, which symbolizes speaking.
3. Premise (E): Speaking staffs with stone heads are thought to symbolize a warrior’s mace.
4. Conclusion: The object is probably the [stone] head of a speaking staff.
Even with E added, the conclusion remains logically consistent. There is no contradiction. Why? Because the two uses of symbolism refer to different things:
– The stimulus’ symbolism (open mouth) is about this specific object – the stone head.
– E’s symbolism (warrior’s mace) is about the speaking staff as a whole, of which the stone head is only a part.
So E just adds additional information that we don’t care about. Because we don’t care what the speaking staff as a whole symbolizes (which the argument says nothing about – the argument says what this object, which they believe is the HEAD of the staff symbolizes). We’re trying to establish what the head actually belongs to.
For E to truly weaken the argument, it would need to call into question the link between this particular stone head (with an open mouth) and a speaking staff. For example, stronger weakeners might say “Stone heads with open mouths were commonly used as decorative carvings on weapons” or “Open-mouthed carvings were often symbols of warriors, not speakers, in this era.” These attack the reasoning that the open mouth -> speaking -> speaking staff. But E does none of that. It simply adds an extra fact about the symbolic meaning of an already-identified speaking staff.
Other Notes
We cannot make any claims about speaking staffs or objects without stone heads because:
1. We know from the stimulus this object is made of stone (flint).
2. We know it is the head of something (but what it is a part of is in question).
So we don’t know anything about speaking staffs without stone heads, as you say.
Final Takeaway/Summary
E does not challenge the reasoning that led the author to conclude the object is part of a speaking staff, nor does it challenge the conclusion itself that the object is a part of a speaking staff. Even if E is true, the conclusion remains consistent and logically sound. A true weakener would need to question whether the stone head was a part of a speaking staff at all – E does not do that. So B is a much stronger weakener than E because it challenges exactly that, even with the normally qualifier.
Hopefully that helps! Sorry if it’s disorganized, hard to make a coherent analysis in the comment format.
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?
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.
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)”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, I answered B on this question but it was marked wrong and I’m only just realizing this. I’m pretty furious.
On your scored LSAT? You can contest that. Check your scoresheet to be sure of what you marked.
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.
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.
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?
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.