Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q19 A carved flint object depicting

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 carved flint object depicting a stylized human head with an open mouth was found in a Stone Age tomb in Ireland.

Conclusion

The carved flint object (depicting a human head w/ an open mouth) was probably the head of a speaking staff.

Evidence

Some people think it was a weapon -- the head of a warrior's mace -- but it's too small for that purpose.

Also, the open mouth symbolizes speaking.

Evaluate

Because the author is interpreting the meaning of a found object, we can use our Curious Fact / Explanation mindset.

Curious Fact .... What is this carved flint object, a human head with an open mouth?

Author's Explanation ... It was probably the head of a speaking staff (since open mouth symbolizes speaking)

Goal

If we're weakening this type of argument, we primarily look for - an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact (this carved flint object isn't the head of a speaking staff, it's ______ . )

or we look for - something that hurts the plausibility of the Author's Explanation. (it's unlikely that this carved flint object was the head of a speaking staff, because _____ .)

19.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

  1. The tomb in which the

    Strengthens, if anything

    Since this object we're investigating was found in a tomb, if there were any other objects that seem like weapons in the tomb, it might make it seem less likely that this object was a weapon. That would help the author, since she's trying to rule out the idea that it was part of a warrior's mace.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Communal objects were normally passed

    Why this is right

    This (awful) answer is weakening by lowering the plausibility of the Author's Explanation. It's unlikely that this carved flint object was the head of a speaking staff, because .... - speaking staffs are communal objects - communal objects were normally passed from one generation to the next in Stone Age Ireland, and - this object was found in a tomb In other words, since someone buried this object in a tomb, they weren't trying to pass it down to the next generation, so it probably wasn't a communal object, so it probably wasn't the head of a speaking staff. Terrible? Yes. Does this prove that this object couldn't have been the head of a speaking staff? Of course not. It only says that communal objects were usually passed down. Maybe this was one that wasn't going to be passed down. But we don't judge Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox based on whether they're fully convincing (they never are). We judge them on whether they do more than nothing, if the other answers do nothing or go the opposite direction. If there's more than one answer that goes in the correct direction, then we judge those answers on which is more impactful.

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

    45% picked this

  3. The object was carved with

    No Impact

    Does this undermine the plausibility that the object was the head of a speaking staff? Not quite. We'd be trying to say, "if this artistry was rare, then we don't think this object even came from Stone Age Ireland, and thus it probably wasn't a speaking staff". But the author wasn't saying it was an Irish speaking staff, so it doesn't matter whether it came from elsewhere. The fact that the artistry was rare either means it came from elsewhere or that the person who made it was atypically talented. No matter what, that object got to Stone Age Ireland one way or the other because that's where we found it. So the fact that it's unusually intricate doesn't have any impact on assessing whether it's the head of a speaking staff. (if anything, we'd probably expect a speaking staff to have more intricate carvings then the head of a warrior's mace, since the latter is just gonna get banged up against bones and shields and waste all that delicious artistry)

    9% picked this

  4. The tomb in which the

    Strengthens, if anything

    If we think there's a decent common sense connection between "politically prominent person" and "someone who would be in a position to use a speaking staff", then this actually adds plausibility to the author's hypothesis. Perhaps at gatherings of the Stone Age senate, politically prominent people passed around this speaking staff in order to conduct orderly discussions.

    4% picked this

  5. A speaking staff with a

    No Impact

    We're trying to assess whether this object was the head of a speaking staff or something else. This answer choice is saying, "IF it's a speaking staff, then that design was meant to symbolize a warrior's mace". Cool. We don't really care. Are you telling me it is a speaking staff? Because that would strengthen. This answer is trying to bait people into thinking, "Ohhhhh, so it is a warrior's mace! Those archaeologists were right!" But this doesn't say it is a mace. It's saying that something is a speaking staff, but it happens to symbolize a warrior's mace. Christians could say that the cross on their necklace symbolizes the crucifix on which Jesus died, but that doesn't mean their necklace is the cross on which Jesus died. It's a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant.

    39% 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