Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q7 Very little is known about

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

Very little is known about prehistoric hominid cave dwellers.

Conclusion (therefore)

It is likely that these cave dwellers engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders (chasing and tackling animals).

Evidence

The skeletal fractures these cave dwellers had are most like the type and distribution of fractures sustained by rodeo riders.

Evaluate / Goal

Most of the time on Principle-Strengthen, we just want to prephrase an "If Premise, Then Conclusion" linking idea, so we'd be looking for something like,

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argumentation above?

The primary source of clues
No Impact
The evidence in this argument involved skeletal remains. This answer just tells us that skeletal remains are the most common form of evidence about prehistoric hominids. But this answer does nothing to get us from, "If prehistoric hominids had the same skeletal fractures as rodeo riders do, then prehistoric hominids probably did stuff similar to rodeo riders."
12% picked this
The most important aspect of
No Impact
This answer isn't explicitly about "how food was obtained" at all. We might read between the lines and see some of that, but that concept is largely out of scope. This answer doesn't help us get from "hominids had skeletal injuries similar to what rodeo riders have; thus, hominids probably engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders".
0% picked this
If direct evidence as to
Bad Conclusion Match
This is a principle that allows us to conclude that we "shouldn't go looking for indirect evidence". We need a principle that helps us conclude that "early hominids were engaged in activities similar to rodeo riders", so this is miles off target.
0% picked this
Correct
If there is a similarity
Why this is right
This rule would help us conclude that "there is probably a similarity between causes", and our actual conclusion is "it is likely that cave dwellers engaged in similar activities", so we should consider whether we can make this work. The premise talked about a similarity of skeletal fractures. The conclusion is talking about a similarity of activities (chasing and tackling animals). Can we call "chasing and tackling animals" the cause, and "skeletal fractures'" the effect? Sure. It's not explicitly said, but that's the common sense interpretation of what this author is suggesting. The whole reason the author surmises that early hominids were also chasing and tackling animals is because she's trying to explain the curious fact of why these early hominids had skeletal fractures like rodeo riders do. Essentially, the author is thinking, "If these hominids have skeletal fractures that match what rodeo riders have, then they both got these fractures from the same activity."
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
The frequency with which a
Weak Evidence / Conclusion Match
This argument would help us bridge an argument gap like, "Prehistoric hominids chased and tackled animals three times as much as rodeo riders do. Thus, prehistoric hominids probably had 3 times as many injuries from chasing and tackling animals." The argument didn't really discuss the frequency of injuries; it talked about the "type and distribution" of fractures. And the evidence didn't say that hominids' head injuries were from chasing and tackling animals. That's the new idea that the conclusion is trying to establish. This answer is saying, "If we know you do activity X half as much as Bob, then you'll have half as many injuries from X as Bob does". The idea of Proportionality goes in both directions, so this could also support an argument that says, "Since you have as many injuries from X as Bob does, then you must do activity X half as much as Bob". This argument did not say: "Hominids have a similar frequency of injuries from chasing and tackling animals as do rodeo riders. Thus, they probably engaged in chasing and tackling animals about as frequently as rodeo riders do". The argument said: "Hominids have a similar type/distribution of skeletal injuries as rodeo riders do. Thus, they probably engage in activities like chasing and tackling animals, as rodeo riders do."
5% 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