Logical Reasoning

PT1 · S4 · Q7 When Cortez arrived in Mexico

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D.

Conclusion (thus)

The game originated sometimes between 1000 AD and Cortez' arrival in 1519 AD.

Evidence

The locals were playing the game, using a rubber ball, in 1519, and the local inhabitants began to use rubber around 1000.

Evaluate

It doesn't seem like we're being tested here on a Missing Link assumption, because the linking assumption would sound like,

Instead, we should probably try to argue the Anti-Conclusion.

Given that ... this game involved a rubber ball, and rubber wasn't used by these inhabitants of Mexico until 1000,

How could we argue that ... this game didn't originate between 1000 and 1519?

Is it possible the game originated before 1000 AD?

Sure. The local inhabitants didn't start using rubber until 1000, but maybe the earliest iterations of the game used a ball made of straw or some other material. Maybe around the year 1000, they switched to using a rubber ball, but the game was already invented before that.

It's also possible that the game originated in some other part of the world, where they began to use rubber earlier than 1000.

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out a possible objection. The correct answer, if negated, would potentially give us a way to argue that the game originated prior to the year 1000.

7.

The conclusion reached above depends on which one of the following assumptions?

  1. The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico

    Too Strong: all

    This just takes factual stuff we heard (they were playing a ceremonial game) and inflates it into an incredibly extreme idea: at every single ceremonial occasion ever they played games The author doesn't need to assume that 100% of ceremonial occasions involved playing games. If only 99% of them did, would that change the argument in any way? No.

    2% picked this

  2. The making of rubber balls

    Too Strong: earliest

    If the game was played with a rubber ball in the year 1000, which was right when inhabitants started using rubber, then sure the rubber ball would be one of the earliest uses. But the author isn't claiming that this game started in 1000. She's only claiming that it started between 1000-1519, For all she knows/cares, the game didn't start until the year 1400, which certainly wouldn't make the rubber ball one of the earliest uses of rubber.

    15% picked this

  3. The ceremonial game referred to

    Out of Scope: popular

    It doesn't matter to the author's argument whether the game was popular or obscure. Whether it was known throughout Mexico, or only in one village. She's only trying to establish a chronology for when it was invented.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    The game had been played

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, it would say, "This game hasn't always been played with a rubber ball." Thus, at its inception (when the game was invented / when it originated), it may have been played with a ball made of straw or made of leather. That badly weakens the argument, because the author is trying to set the "earliest possible date for this game to exist" at the year 1000 A.D., based on the fact that rubber wasn't used until 1000. But if we say, "hey author -- when this game was originated, it didn't use a rubber ball", then the rubber date of 1000 A.D. is meaningless. In other words, it's possible the game was originated in 800 A.D. with a straw ball, and they later switched to a rubber ball, once rubber started to get used.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    79% picked this

  5. The dating of the first

    Unsupported Causality: due to

    We know that Cortez observed inhabitants playing a game with rubber ball in 1519, when he arrived in Mexico. Did the argument imply that Cortez is the reason we know that the first use of rubber was in the year 1000? Not at all. We have no idea how it was learned that the first use of rubber in Mexico was around 1000. Whether the dating of that earliest use was due to Cortez or due to someone else, it wouldn't affect the argument at all.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free