Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q2 Museum curator: Our ancient Egyptian

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

Museum curator: Our ancient Egyptian collection includes an earthenware hippopotamus that resembles a child's toy.

Conclusion (we conclude that)

This hippo was not a toy; it was a religious object.

Evidence

It was discovered in a tomb with the legs broken off. Breaking the legs off a representation of an animal was thought to help a deceased person in the eternal war the dead are fighting with beasts (fun afterlife, ancient Egyptians!).

Evaluate

When it comes to Linking assumptions, we know we have New Terms in the Conclusion. We're trying to derive a conclusion about whether something was or wasn't a toy or a religious object, but we never defined those nouns.

So the author is assuming if legs are broken and → religious object they might be broken to (not toy) help the dead in eternal war

But since this is more of a real world argument, we should probably be approaching this thinking about possible Objections that a Defender answer could ward off.

Given that ... these legs were broken off and that broken off an animal effigy's legs was an act that was thought to help dead people fight beasts in the afterlife,

How could we argue that ... This was a toy or it wasn't a religious object?

If we say it's a toy, we know the author is going to say,

What could we say? - I don't know, maybe they just broke but the kid kept playing with the toy? - maybe a dog ate the legs off

The author is also assuming that this object could not have doubled as both a toy and a religious object.

Goal

Find an answer that links "toy" or "religious object" to wording in the premise, or find an answer that rules out an objection.

When we negate the correct answer, it should sound like an objection (potentially like an Alternate Explanation for why the legs are broken off).

2.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the curator's argument?

  1. The tomb in which the

    Not Necessary

    If we negate this and say that it was the tomb of a child, does that badly weaken the argument? Can we say, "Hey, author --- this was a child's tomb. Hence it was a toy!" Not really, the author could easily say, "Of course it's a child's tomb. Children weren't only buried with toys. They were buried with religious objects too."

    3% picked this

  2. Earthenware figures were never used

    Too Strong: never

    The author is assuming that this earthenware figure wasn't a toy, because it's legs are ripped off, which can be a symbolic religious gesutre. The author doesn't need to assume 100% of earthenware figures are not toys. If we negate the answer and say, "Hey, author --- some earthenware figures were toys." She would say, "Sure, I realized that. But not THIS one, since it's legs were broken off."

    6% picked this

  3. The tomb in which the

    Out of Scope: reentered

    The author doesn't need to assume anything about whether anyone reentered the tomb vs. whether it was completely shut off from contact until the archaeologists found it. The author does need to assume that "no one reentered that tomb after the burial and ripped the legs off that hippopotamus", because if someone did rip off the legs years after the burial, then that would ruin the author's notion that this object was a buried with the legs already ripped off, as a religious gesture meant to help them in the afterlife.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    The hippopotamus' legs were not

    Why this is right

    On Necessary Assumption, we love to see answers that are ruling-out an idea using "not / no" language. About 35% of correct answers have that form. These are easy and opportune to negate. Negating this answer says that the hippo's legs were broken through some natural occurrence after it was placed in the tomb. That would mean the legs are not missing because someone broke the legs off as a religious gesture. It means the hippo was buried with all its legs intact, and some earthquake or raccoon broke the legs off once the body was already buried. That makes it sound like the object was probably a toy, not a religious object.

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

    86% picked this

  5. The hippopotamus was originally placed

    Not Necessary: upside down

    Would it weaken the argument if the hippo were originally found right side up? No, it doesn't make any difference whether they found it right side up, upside down, on its side ... the only thing the argument cares about is that when they picked up the hippo they realized the legs were broken off. (Isn't a hippo with its legs broken off just a manatee?)

    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