Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT128 S2 Q1 Explanation

Mysterious ancient tracks cut into limestone

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

TopicsStrengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Mysterious ancient tracks cut into limestone have recently been found on the island of Malta. The tracks wander, sometimes disappearing under modern structures. Their origin and purpose are unknown, but evidence indicates that they could have connected settlements or water sources. One archaeologist hypothesizes, based on were made in about 1000 B.C. by animal-drawn carts.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

The Argument

An archaeologist hypothesizes that the mysterious tracks on Malta were made by animal-drawn carts around 1000 B.C. The argument is built on physical appearance — the kind of wear pattern, surroundings, and so on.

Evaluate

The hypothesis makes two specific claims: (1) animals (not humans alone) drew the carts, and (2) the tracks date to about 1000 B.C. To strengthen, we want evidence that ties animals to the right place at the right time.

Goal

Look for an answer that puts animals near the tracks at around 1000 B.C. Ideally something direct — like physical evidence of animals in the area at that period.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
1.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to support the archaeologist's

Answer choices

  1. Correct92% picked this

    Areas near the tracks have yielded relatively large amounts of fossilized animal excrement dating from

    Why this is right

    This nails both pieces of the hypothesis. Fossilized animal excrement near the tracks places animals in the right location, and the dating (approximately 1000 B.C.) matches the hypothesized time period. So at the very time the archaeologist says the tracks were made, animals were demonstrably present where the tracks are. That tightens the case for animal-drawn carts in that era.

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

  2. No Impact6% picked this

    Some of the tracks connect areas that are sources of fresh water

    The stimulus already says the tracks could have connected water sources. Knowing some still do today does not advance the specific claim that the tracks were made by animal-drawn carts at 1000 B.C. Modern water sources do not place animals or carts at the right time period.

  3. No Impact0% picked this

    Some terrain on the island of Malta is more easily traversed on foot than are certain other

    This says some terrain on Malta is easier to walk than other terrain. That is not specific to the tracks, and it does not connect to animal-drawn carts or to the 1000 B.C. date. It is a general fact about Maltese terrain that does not advance the hypothesis either way.

  4. No Impact1% picked this

    Historically, inhabitants of the island of Malta have not been innovative users

    If anything, this could weaken — saying Maltese inhabitants have been historically uninnovative with transportation slightly cuts against them adopting animal-drawn carts. But it does not directly support the specific 1000 B.C. animal-cart hypothesis. The "historically" framing is also vague — it does not tell us about 1000 B.C. specifically.

  5. No Impact1% picked this

    Around 1000 B.C., some settlements were abandoned in parts

    Settlements being abandoned around 1000 B.C. on Malta does not strengthen the claim that animal-drawn carts made the tracks. Abandonment is not specifically connected to cart use or animal use; it could happen for many reasons (disease, war, climate). This does not advance the hypothesis.

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