Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S2 · Q13 From an analysis of broken pottery

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

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Conclusion

New evidence suggests that the settlement in SW Arabia is considerably older than 1000 B.C.

Evidence (colon)

Tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Evaluate

When they look at the pottery / statues, the age of the materials makes them think this settlement started in 1000 B.C., but our author is saying that if you look at the timber (the wood), those materials make the site seem way older than that.

Given that ... the wood used in the building seems a lot older than the pottery / statuary used, How could we say that ... the settlement wasn't established until 1000 B.C.?

Does the age of the timber wood used reliably tell us when a settlement was established? Isn't it possible that you move into an area in 1000 B.C. and use wood that was chopped down in 1500 B.C.?

The evidence also tells us that this is just a piece of wood. Could it be a random scrap of wood that wasn't really part of the settlement? Maybe going off the pottery is a more reliable / robust way of dating the site.

Goal

Let's look for a way to argue that,

13.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?

  1. Correct

    The building timber bore marks

    Why this is right

    This answer is saying, "Yes, the wood is older than 1000 B.C., but the wood was from an earlier settlement, not the one whose pottery and statuary we're analyzing. This settlement wasn't established until 1000 B.C., but apparently some of the wood they used was reclaimed from whatever settlement had existed there before". Someone might build a gelato shop in Rome and use a stone from the Colosseum. If future archaeologists were determining when this gelato shop was established, they shouldn't go off how old the stone from the Colosseum is. When someone does a tear-down remodel of a house, they might keep some of the original studs / frame of the old house (i.e. "This house has good bones. Let's just strip it down to the studs.) If that frame were erected in 1920 but the house was remodeled in 2020, we shouldn't say this new house was established in 1920.

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

    70% picked this

  2. The pieces of pottery and

    Weak Impact

    This does do a little to weaken, since we have conflicting evidence: a piece of timber that's older than 1000 B.C. and pieces of pottery that look to be from 1000 B.C. This answer gives a little more strength to the pottery evidence, saying that it comes from several parts of the site (i.e. maybe it's more representative). But several isn't a particularly strong idea. And the author can always say, "Sure, I'm not denying that there is pottery and statuary at the settlement from 1000 B.C. I'm just saying that stuff was added later. The settlement was established much earlier, given that some of the wood used is much older." (A) attacks her central assumption that "the settlement is as old as the oldest piece of material we found there".

    2% picked this

  3. The tests used to determine

    Weak Impact

    Weak Impact This is very similar to (B). It makes the pottery / statuary evidence sound someone more robust or trustworthy than the timber evidence. There would be no way to rank (B) vs. (C) in terms of which has more weakening impact, which suggests that neither one is right. (A) weakens more than this because it makes the author's one piece of evidence (timber from pre-1000 B.C.) totally irrelevant to the conversation (it wasn't from this settlement). (B) and (C) are just making the author's piece of evidence less compelling than the counterevidence.

    17% picked this

  4. The site has yielded many

    No Impact

    This is very similar to (B) and (C). We could say maybe it still has a scintilla of weakening impact, but counting up how many samples we've found of each type isn't really any sort of attack. For number of samples to become an attack, we would need to hear something more like, "Despite a thorough search of the rest of the settlement in which many more samples of pottery and statuary were found, no other pieces of building timber were found". That might make us think that this piece of timber the author is relying on wasn't really part of the settlement. It was just some random scrap found in the same area. But this answer is going to a place where we could start thinking like that.

    3% picked this

  5. The type of pottery found

    Strengthens, if anything

    This doesn't really do anything, because "style" of pottery is not what we care about -- "age" of the pottery is. But, if anything, being told that the pottery resembles earlier stuff would just strengthen the author's case.

    7% 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