• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

LSAT Hacks

The Explanations That Should Have Come With The LSAT

  • Start Here
    • About
  • LSAT Explanations
  • LSAT Courses
  • Tutoring
    • Tutoring
    • Mastery seminars
    • Course
    • Books
  • Blog
  • Login
LSAT Explanations » LSAT Preptest 74 » Logical Reasoning 1 » Question 12

LSAT 74, Logical Reasoning I, Q12, LSATHacks

LSAT 74 Explanations

LR Question 12 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Archaeologists are discovering a great deal about…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: The Sals didn’t smelt iron.

REASONING: The Sals didn’t have a word for iron.

ANALYSIS: This stimulus has a lot of filler. The first sentence adds nothing; it merely tells us vaguely that there are new discoveries. Likewise, the information about bronze and copper smelting tells us nothing directly about iron.

On sufficient assumption questions you must be focussed. The author will give you a conclusion: the Sals don’t smelt iron. They’ll give you their evidence for that statement: The Sals had no word for iron.

There will be a gap between the conclusion and evidence. In this case, the fact that a language lacks a word for something doesn’t mean the people who speak that language don’t know about the thing. For instance, you know how an autumn day smells? We don’t have a word for that, but we know what it is.

The right answer connects the evidence to the conclusion by saying that if a language lacks a word for a metal, then it didn’t smelt that metal.

Normally you could diagram a sufficient assumption stimulus. But in this case there are just two facts, with no conditional statements to draw. The right answer connects the facts by using a conditional.

___________

  1. This gets things backwards. It says: word –> smelt. We’re looking for smelt –> word
  2. This gets the contrapositive of the right answer backwards. It says: smelt –> word. We’re looking for word –> smelt
  3. The question is trying to prove a point about iron. Copper and bronze are irrelevant unless they’re connected to iron.
  4. We’re trying to prove that the Sals didn’t smelt iron. This answer tells us what happens if the Sals didn’t smelt iron. Such a statement can’t help us prove that the Sals didn’t smelt iron.
  5. CORRECT. This connects the evidence to the conclusion. Smelt –> word. Contrapositive: word –> smelt

Previous Question
Table Of Contents
Next Question




Free Logical Reasoning lesson

Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.

Check out LSATHacks All Access

It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. ahmad says

    May 10, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Graeme, how do we know that the stimulus contains the contrapositive of the statement, and not the original conditional statement itself? for example, why is no word–>not smelt the conditional statement and word–>smelt the contra? i had trouble understanding that given what was stated in the stimulus.

    Reply
    • FounderGraeme Blake says

      May 20, 2015 at 4:57 pm

      The stimulus *doesn’t* say “no word –> not smelt”. That’s what E says. Or rather E says smelt –> word.

      That said, the argument was arguing for “no smelt” as a conclusion. That’s why you need to put E into contrapositive form to bridge the gap.

      It’s not really a big deal though. ANY conditional statement can be read as the statement itself or its contrapositve. They’re exactly logically equivalent. So it doesn’t matter which way you read a statement as long as you do it correctly and can see how it fills the gap.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox


New! LSATHacks All Access: Get every course on LSATHacks + members only explanations

LSATHacks Pro

Get a higher score with LSATHacks

LSAT Course, LSAT Mastery seminars, and 3,000 extra explanations. All for only $760 $349, satisfaction guaranteed. Sign up here: https://lsathacks.com/all-access/

Testimonials

Your emails are tremendously helpful. - Matt

Thanks for the tips! They were very helpful, and even make you feel like you studied a bit. Great insight and would love more! - Haj

Dear Graeme: MUCH MORE PLEASE!! Your explanations are very clear, and you give equal importance to why answers are WRONG, as well as why THE ANSWER is right!! Very well done. Thank you for all your efforts - Tom

These have been awesome. More please!!! - Caillie

The course was immensely helpful and has eased my nerves a lot. - Lovlean

© Copyright 2023 LSAT Hacks. All Rights Reserved. | FAQ/Legal

Disclaimer: Use of this site requires official LSAT preptests; the explanations are of no use without the preptests. If you do not have the accompanying preptests, you can find them here: LSAT preptests
LSAT is copyright of LSAC. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.
×
Item Added to your Cart!
There are no products
Continue Shopping