LR Question 19 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Neanderthals probably preserved smoked meat.
REASONING: Many Neanderthal fireplaces had lichen and grass. Such fires produce a lot of smoke, but not much heat or light.
ANALYSIS: The archaeologist is making an unstated assumption: there was no other reason that the Neanderthals used lichen and grass for their fires.
___________
- This is a trap answer. The archaeologist wasn’t saying the Neanderthals used only lichen fires. They were saying that they did use them, and implied that the only reason to use them would be to produce smoke for meat.
- CORRECT. This strongly weakens the argument. It says the Neanderthals didn’t choose to use smoke fires. They were forced to. If that’s the case, they may not have used the fires to smoke meat. It was simply the only type of fire they had available for heat and light.
- This shows the Neanderthals went to great efforts to make lichen fires. But it doesn’t tell us what they used those fires for.
- So? We modern humans have other methods of preserving meat, but we do still smoke it. The presence of other methods hasn’t eliminated our desire for smoked meat.
- This gives a reason for smoking meat, which helps strengthen the author’s argument.
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.
But the passage never specifies that they “chose” to smoke it, it just says they probably did. In this case, wouldn’t B strengthen because it proves that they probably smoked it, considering there was no other option available? Wouldn’t A do more to weaken since it shows there was another option, casting doubt on the idea they smoked it?
But there are other options. There’s more than one way to preserve meat! You can salt it for example.
Further, to be more useful, B would have to show there are no other plants better for smoking. There could easily be plants available for heat, but the point of the argument is that the lichen and grasses indicating smoke but not heat.