Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q17 Archaeologist: The mosaics

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

Archaeologist: The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient city now flooded by the runoff from Turkey's Birecik Dam, should have been left there.

Evidence

We had all the information about the mosaics that were removed from Zeugma, the ancient city now flooded by the runoff from Turkey's Birecik Dam, that we needed to draw archaeological conclusions.

Future archaeologists studying the site, who may not have access to our records, might be misled by their absence.

Conclusion

The mosaics that were removed from Zeugma should have been left there.

Evaluate

The conclusion is prescriptive and so represents an opinion. The choice was to leave the mosaics or to remove them. The argument offers points in favor of leaving the mosaics but does not consider any points in favor of removing them.

17.

Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument?

  1. Correct

    The only considerations that bear

    Why this is right

    This supports the conclusion by eliminating reasons to consider whether the mosaics should have been removed other than the kind of reasons that were considered in the argument.

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

    69% picked this

  2. Archaeologists studying a site can

    No Impact

    At no point in this conversation are we worried about whether or not future archaeologists will be able to detect flooding. We're worried whether they will be misled into thinking this civilization didn't have mosaic art (if we remove the art from the area).

    4% picked this

  3. The materials used in the

    Weaker Impact

    This sounds like a point in favor of leaving the mosaics in their original location. Were we to remove the mosaics, then future archaeologists wouldn't have the luxury of easily inferring what materials were used to construct the mosaic. But if we compare its impact to that of (A), this isn't as strong. (A) is saying there is nothing else that needs to be considered other than archaeological ones. We have all the archaeological info we could possibly want, so there's nothing to gain by removing the mosaics; there are only potential downsides. This answer sort of reinforces the author's concern that we should leave the mosaics where they are so that future archaeologists can learn from them. But reiterating the logical force of the premise (as this answer does) isn't as impactful as removing all forms of potential objection (as choice A does).

    23% picked this

  4. Archaeological sites from which artifacts

    Weakens

    This supports the removal of the mosaics from Zeugma.

    3% picked this

  5. The removal of artifacts from

    Out of Scope

    Environmental impacts are not relevant to the argument.

    1% 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