Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q20 Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings

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

Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled.

Conclusion

The predominant theory cannot be right (in the case of these newly discovered island paintings).

rephrase: these paintings were not largely a description of the current diets of the painters.

Evidence (because)

Painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway in order to make the long journey to and from the islands, but there are no clear paintings of sea animals.

Evaluate

If we're trying to argue that the paintings were largely a description of the current diets of the painters, then the author is going to want to know why there aren't any clear pictures of sea animals.

So we're probably going to weaken by making excuses for that fact: - there are paintings of sea animals, but they're ambiguous because ... they've been eroded? the painters don't really understand what sea animals look like, since the animals live underwater until they're caught or speared for food? they're harder to draw?

Or maybe we could say that sea animals weren't part of the current diet of the painters. Maybe while they were painting, they weren't going back and forth to the islands, so they weren't currently eating sea animals.

Goal

We want to eliminate four answers that weaken and allow us to defend the predominant theory, to defend the idea that the paintings largely were a description of the current diet of the painters.

Stay flexible. It's very common on EXCEPT for some of those four answers to work in a different style than the other three do.

20.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:

  1. Once on these islands, the

    Weakens

    If, once on the islands, the painters hunted and ate land animals, then their current diet (the diet during the time they were painting) didn't feature sea creatures. The diet theory says paintings reflect the current diet — and a current diet of land animals is consistent with paintings of land animals and no paintings of sea creatures. This answer lets us say, "the paintings DO reflect current diets. Current diet didn't include sea animals (so that's why you don't see paintings of sea animals)."

    8% picked this

  2. Parts of the cave paintings

    Weakens

    If parts of the cave paintings did not survive the centuries, then sea-creature paintings might have once existed and been lost. The author's "no paintings unambiguously depict sea creatures" claim is about the surviving record, and the surviving record may not represent what was originally painted. This answer lets us say, "the paintings DO reflect current diets. Sure, current diet included sea animals. And there were paintings here of sea animals, but those paintings got washed away."

    17% picked this

  3. Correct

    The cave paintings that were

    Why this is right

    This answer does not weaken the argument against the theory. The author wouldn't be troubled by the presence of land animals in the paintings. He's troubled by the LACK of sea animals in the paintings. He thinks these painters were eating sea animals as a part of their diet, so if there aren't paintings of sea animals then it's not going to live up to being a description of their current diet. It feels somewhat assumed that they are ALSO eating land animals, and that there ARE paintings of land animals, so this answer doesn't go against anything the author is picturing.

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

    49% picked this

  4. Those who did the cave

    Weakens

    If the painters had advanced techniques for preserving meats, they could have brought enough preserved land-animal meat for the journey and not needed to eat sea creatures along the way. That breaks the author's premise that they "must have needed to eat the sea animals." It's very rare for LSAT to weaken by contradicting a premise, but it does happen. When it does, it's almost always an opinionated premise, and the phrasing "the painters must have needed to eat sea animals" can be heard as the author expressing a confident opinion. This answer lets us say, "the paintings DO reflect current diets. Current diet didn't include sea animals (so that's why you don't see paintings of sea animals), because they didn't actually need to eat sea animals to make the trip back and forth."

    18% picked this

  5. The cave paintings on the

    Weakens

    If the paintings were done by the islands' original inhabitants, who ate land animals, then those particular painters never made the long sea journey and never needed to eat sea creatures. Their current diet was land-based, and the absence of sea-creature paintings is what the diet theory predicts. This answer lets us say, "the paintings DO reflect current diets. The painters' current diet didn't include sea animals (so that's why you don't see paintings of sea animals), because they already lived on the island. They didn't need to journey there and eat sea animals along the way."

    8% 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