Logical Reasoning

PT12 · S1 · Q24 Until recently it was thought

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

Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium.

Conclusion (shows that)

B-36 was printed by Gutenberg and the presence of titanium in the Vinland Map's ink is no longer a reason to doubt that it is from the 15th century.

Evidence

Titanium was found in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible and the B-36 Bible, but not in a bunch of other 15th century books.

Evaluate

I'm sorry, what just happened? What the hell is Vinland Map? Why is there a bible called B-36?

This is easily one of the most confusing arguments to read in LR. It has a two-pronged conclusion, and we really need to take our time with each of the claims in the conclusion to understand how the author got there.

Why does the author think that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg?

I guess because Gutenberg's bible was titanium ink in it, and B-36 also has titanium ink in it. But why would that mean that Gutenberg printed it? Couldn't someone else have printed with titanium ink? It seems like the author is assuming "if titanium ink, then printed by Gutenberg", but that seems like a crazy leap to make.

Why does the author think that the titanium in Vinland Map no longer provides a reason to think it's not from the 15th century?

Well, it was previously thought that nothing from the 15th century would have titanium ink in it. But then we found out a couple things from the 15th century do have titanium ink it (the two bibles).

How could we argue that the titanium ink in Vinland Map does still give reason to think it wasn't from the 15th century?

We could say something like,

Goal

It would be very normal for us to be confused af at this point about what we're looking for.

We had objections like, as well as,

Let's just try to work with the answers.

24.

The reasoning in the passage is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that

Correct
the results of the analysis
Why this is right
This is essentially accusing the author of self-contradicting (one of the famous flaws, but one we almost never see). Was the author ever thinking that the use of titanium was extremely restricted in the 15th century? Yes, in order to make the assumption that "if it has titanium ink, it was printed by Gutenberg", you'd be thinking that only Gutenberg used titanium ink. That is extremely restricted. Was the author ever thinking that the use of titanium was not extremely restricted in the 15th century, i.e. was common? Yes, in saying, "the fact that Vinland Map has titanium ink doesn't give you any reason to doubt that it came from the 15th century", our author is assuming that titanium ink was a common thing in the 15th century. If titanium ink were extremely rare in the 15th century, then something that possessed titanium ink would be very unlikely to have come from the 15th century. So the author had a two pronged conclusion, and to conclude that B-36 came from Gutenberg, you need to assume that almost no one else used titanium ink, whereas to conclude that it's perfectly legit for Vinland Map to be a 15th century map with titanium ink, you have to assume that titanium ink was a common thing in the 15th century. So the author's assumptions are contradicting each other. If you're going to assume the ink is rare to draw the first conclusion then you can't assume that it's common to draw the second conclusion.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
52% picked this
if the technology that makes
Out of Scope
Who cares whether 15th century printers or artists were aware whether their ink had titanium? The argument is just about where a bible was printed and whether or not titanium ink makes a map unlikely to have come from the 15th century. Assessing those claims has nothing to do with knowing what people in the 15th century were thinking or were aware of.
5% picked this
it is unreasonable to suppose
Bad Description
The argument does not conclude that "since titanium ink is present in these bibles, we can determine the date and location of where they were made". It just reasons that, "since titanium ink is present in both of these bibles but not in numerous other books, the bibles must have printed by the same person."
33% picked this
both the B-36 Bible and
Out of Scope
The argument is not about whether the documents can be appreciated apart from their date. The author never suggested that we can only appreciate the merits of these documents if we sort out where / when they were made.
2% picked this
the discovery of titanium in
Out of Scope
The order in which titanium was discovered in different documents is irrelevant to the logic of the inferences drawn. The argument's reasoning does not depend on which discovery came first. We have no reason to be insisting that it must have been discovered in Vinland Map first. Also, the author never suggested a chronological order of which document's titanium ink was discovered first, so even if we did care about that sequence, the author didn't provide any sequence, so there's no way we could be arguing with the author over the sequence.
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