Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q5 Archaeologist: A large corporation

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

Archaeologist: A large corporation has recently offered to provide funding to restore an archaeological site and to construct facilities to make the site readily accessible to the general public.

Conclusion

We should reject the corporation's offer to provide funding to restore an archaeological site and make it accessible to the general public.

Evidence

Many parts of the site contain unexamined evidence.

Evaluate

We need to flesh out this premise with a little common sense. Why would it be a problem for the author that this site still has some unexamined evidence?

The author must be thinking that if we were to get money to restore this site and make it readily accessible to the general public, then in the process we would somehow mess up our ability to harness the value of this unexamined evidence.

I'm not sure if the author thinks we'll ruin it while we're doing construction on the site or if the author thinks we'll accidentally wall-off the unexamined evidence and not be able to grab it.

Goal

Whatever the author's specific concern is, we could pre-phrase broadly that she is thinking something like this:

If ... there's still Then ... we shouldn't unexamined evidence do a restoration into at an archaeological site a public attraction

5.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, justifies the archaeologist's argument?

  1. The ownership of archaeological sites

    Bad Trigger Match

    This rule doesn't clearly apply to our situation, since we were never told that the large corporation would have control over ownership of the site. We were only told that they offered to provide funding to restore the site and open it up to the public (they'll probably just get a shiny plaque in the visitors' center).

    2% picked this

  2. Any restoration of an archaeological

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    This isn't a rule that provides a way of concluding, - shouldn't take their money - shouldn't restore the site - shouldn't open it up to the public It would only allow us to conclude that a restoration shouldn't represent a certain time period. Also, it sounded like this restoration would be representing the most ancient period of the site's history ("it will conform to the best current theories about how it appeared at the height of the ancient civilization"). Since this answer choice aligns with the pitch for the restoration, it doesn't provide the author with a mechanism to say, "According to this, we shouldn't do this restoration".

    4% picked this

  3. No one should make judgments

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is only a rule that would let us scold someone for attempting to decide what the height of a certain civilization was. It doesn't do anything to connect Premise language (whether or not there's unexamined evidence) to Conclusion language (whether or not we should reject the corporation's offer).

    2% picked this

  4. Only those with a true

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is potentially a rule that allows us to conclude, "Thus the corporation should not be involved in the restoration of the site". But in order to use the rule, we would have to know that the large corporation does not have a true concern for the site's history. Not only did the author never say anything like that as her premise, but we actually have background information that sounds like the large corporation does care (they want to essentially donate money so that the public can behold the best current theories about this ancient civilization).

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The risk of losing evidence

    Why this is right

    This answer has a surprising Weighing Tradeoffs feel, but it is the only answer that uses Premise language (unexamined evidence). We are definitely adding in some common sense to think that this author is worried that we will be risking losing this unexamined evidence if we do the restoration (because it's tainted or walled-off during the restoration / construction process). Since we have a lot to gain from accepting the corporation's offer (yay, we've got money to restore it and let the public come learn about this ancient civilization), if we're arguing that we should reject this offer then we must be assuming that the negatives outweigh the positives. This answer choice establishes that the potential bad outweighs the potential good, which helps us to get closer to that conclusion of "okay, we should reject this offer".

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

    91% 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