LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic…
QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
ARGUMENTS: Patterson thinks it’s likely that music began in the Upper Paleolithic because bone flutes from that era are our earliest evidence for music.
Garza points out that many materials used for instruments are perishable and wouldn’t be found in archaeological sites. Bones are an exception in being likely to survive.
ANALYSIS: Garza raises the problem of survivorship bias. The bone instruments didn’t survive because they were the earliest, but rather because they were made of bone.
So, this means that Patterson’s data isn’t good enough to determine the earliest existence of music. We’d have to somehow figure out whether perishable instruments existed earlier.
Frankly, I found this a very hard question. I saw the flaw, but I didn’t know how to describe it in terms of the answers.
___________
- CORRECT. Body of evidence = surviving instruments.
This is insufficient for figuring out when music was invented, because early instruments made of materials such as wood did not survive, even if they were made before the bone flutes. - This didn’t happen.
Example of challenging premise: Actually, some bone flutes were found 6000 years before the ones you’re referring to. This was in a period earlier than the upper Paleolithic. - A counterexample to the conclusion would involve somehow disproving it with an example.
Example of counterexample: Actually, I have found ancient cave paintings which show music being performed long before these bone flutes were made. So music arose earlier. - An analogous argument is pretty recognizable. There wasn’t one here.
Example of analogy: Animal bones dating to the Upper Paleolithic are the earliest examples of human food found. Therefore, humans likely first started eating in the Upper Paleolithic. - Garza isn’t just using Patterson’s evidence: they introduced new evidence of their own about material durability.
I found this a very tempting answer, because I missed that point. “Using Patterson’s evidence” would mean introducing literally no new information. So Garza did more than use Patterson’s evidence.
Recap: The question begins with “Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. To practice more Method of Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Method of Reasoning Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Method of Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers method of reasoning questions.
I initially selected B, because I thought that Garza’s pointing out of survivorship bias constituted a type of evidence. You agree with this evaluation in your rejection of AC E, where you describe the information about material durability as “new evidence of their own”. Is the issue with AC B not that Garza doesn’t introduce evidence per se, but that the evidence somehow doesn’t challenge the premise of Patterson’s argument (“Bone flutes are the earliest evidence for music”)?
You’re right, and that’s why Graeme wrote “Example of challenging premise” (meaning what he wrote is an example of what would challenge the premise, which Garza didn’t do).
Garza doesn’t dispute the existence or dating of the bone flutes, meaning he doesn’t challenge this premise. What he does challenge is the inference/conclusion drawn from the premise by suggesting that evidence may be biased due to material preservation. Which is why A is correct; Garza argues that Patterson’s evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion, not that the evidence is false.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions.