Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q13 A small collection of copper-alloy

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

A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an abandoned Roman-era well.

Conclusion (therefore)

The copper-alloy implements were dropped into the well no earlier than 375 A.D.

Evidence

They were found in a well, and beneath them was a cache of coins, some of which dated to 375 A.D.

Evaluate

How does the author think that the date of these coins tells us anything about the date of the kitchen implements?

She's thinking,

The coins were from as recently as 375 A.D., so, she reasons, anything on higher up in the well than the coins would have been dropped in after the coins, and thus after 375 A.D.

How can we fight this logic? How could we argue ?

Given that ... the coins below the copper implements were deposited as recently as 375 A.D,

How could we still argue that ... the copper implements themselves were deposited earlier than 375 A.D.?

We could say that,

Goal

Let's look for something that rules out our objection of or look for an answer that finds some other way to increase the plausibility that these implements were no older than 375 A.D.

13.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. The coins used in the

    Very Weak Impact

    It's unclear what the argument means by "the coins were dated to 375 A.D." If it means, like modern day coins, "the coins were marked with the date 375 A.D. to signify the year they were minted", then this answer would mean that a coin made in 375 A.D. would still probably have been around 50 years later, so maybe someone in 425 A.D. still had this coin. If it means, we did radio-carbon dating to see how old this coin was and we could tell it was as old as 375 A.D., then that doesn't tell us exactly when it was minted, so this answer doesn't have any direct impact. In either case, this answer suggests that a coin that originated in 375 A.D. might still have been in someone's pocket 30-50 years after that, when they decided to chuck it in the well. If they didn't throw the coin into the well until even later, like 400 A.D., then that kind of strengthens the conclusion. It sounds like we could say, "no earlier than 375 A.D.? This coin probably wasn't thrown in until 400 A.D., so the kitchen implements are probably younger than 400 A.D.", which would agree with the conclusion. But this answer is just a very weak, general statement and so it's hard to draw any meaningful inference about whether this tells us anything about the coins in the well. We already know that one of them is at least as recent as 375 A.D. We don't really get any new strengthening value by saying, "Actually one of them is at least as recent as 390 A.D."

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    The coins were found in

    Why this is right

    This rules out the one big objection we could make to the argument. The author is assuming, "the lower in the well, the longer ago you were thrown in there. The higher in the well, the sooner you were thrown in there." She thinks that if the coins are below the kitchen implements then the coins were thrown in the well before the kitchen implements were, but as we were thinking, "could a coin be thrown in a well and slip beneath the things that are already in there?" This answer rules out that line of objection. It's saying, "this pile of coins could not have resulted from people throwing in coins after the kitchen implements had already been tossed in the well; this is not a pile of coins that could have slipped through the cracks in the pile of kitchen implements (larger objects) above it. When we see these Defender style correct answers in Strengthen (they are ruling-out an objection), it reminds us that it can be very valuable to try to argue with a Strengthen argument the way we do when we're going Flaw and Weaken (and sometimes Necessary Assumption). Sometimes we need to understand how the case being made is vulnerable to criticism, in order for us to understand how to strengthen the case.

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

    81% picked this

  3. The coins had far more

    No Impact: value

    It doesn't make any difference whether the coins or the kitchen implements were more valuable than the other. We're only trying to sort out the chronological order in which they were tossed in the well.

    1% picked this

  4. The items in the well

    No Impact

    This tells us a potential backstory for how a bunch of objects ended up in a well, but this doesn't help us sort out the chronological ordering of "which was tossed in first: the coins or the kitchen implements"?

    7% picked this

  5. Items of jewelry found beneath

    Weakens

    This totally upends the author's assumption that "lower = older / higher = more recent". This is giving us an example of a lower object that is younger than the higher object. The jewelry (younger) is lower in the well than the coins (which are older). If we applied that logic to the kitchen implements, we could say that "even though the implements are higher in the well than the coins, they still might be older than the coins."

    6% 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