LR Question 2 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Archaeologist: How did the Parthenon’s stonemasons…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The Parthenon’s stonemasons may have used a drawing similar to the one found at Didyma.
REASONING: At Didyma, there is a drawing in a temple which shows the correct width of a column using a grid.
ANALYSIS: The archaeologist is trying to figure out how the stonemasons calculated the width of the columns at the Parthenon.
The only evidence is a drawing that could have been used to measure widths. The fact that something could have been used by architects doesn’t mean that drawings were actually used by architects. We can strengthen this argument by supporting the idea that Greeks used drawings when constructing buildings.
___________
- This actually weakens the argument, a little. Modern architects use drawings. If such a method fails to recreate the Parthenon, then maybe the ancients had other methods.
- This weakens the argument. It raises the possibility that architectural drawing was only developed after the Parthenon was built.
- CORRECT. This supports the argument by showing that drawings indeed were used for construction.
- So? The author wasn’t saying the Didyma drawings were used to construct the Parthenon. Their implied argument was that a similar but different drawing would have been used at the Parthenon.
- The fact that the architects were experienced doesn’t explain how they carved columns.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
Is it assumed that test-takers should know that Parthenon’s stonemasons are from ancient Greece?
If LSAC were making this question today they might alter this question slightly. Though I don’t think it’s a huge stretch: the Parthenon is about as famous as the Taj Mahal, or the great wall of China.
If *you* know the Parthenon is Greek, then you can certainly use it. It’s common knowledge to almost everyone who gets a university education.
You also should give the author’s words a reasonable interpretation. If the Parthenon were in Mexico, then why would the author mention a Greek temple? Their words make much more sense if the temple at Didyma is relevant to the Parthenon.
But even if you don’t know the Parthenon is Greek, and you *don’t* assume that the author’s words have a reasonable interpretation, then C still strengthens the argument. If Didyma were a rare one off, then the drawings wouldn’t necessarily suggest anything for the Parthenon. But if the drawings were common, then it is more likely that the Parthenon’s builders might also have used such a drawing. Whether or not they were Greek – the commonness of the drawings would increase the odds they were a natural thing for architects to include.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
LSAT 74, Logical Reasoning I, Q2:
This question has a large flaw. Who are they to assume that I know that the Parthenon was in ancient Greece? The statement does not include anything that suggests such an assumption. Pretty blatant mistake by LSAC.
I wrote a longer reply here: https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-74/logical-reasoning-1/q-2/#comment-952692
But, C strengthens the argument even if you don’t know where the Parthenon was. C eliminates the possibility that Didyma’s drawings were a rare one off. If the drawings were common, then that increases the odds that stonemasons elsewhere in the world also used such a system. There are only so many ways to build a buildings, and widespread use of a technique suggests that it occurs naturally to human builders.
Whereas a rare one off is not likely to be in use elsewhere.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.