Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S1 · Q2 Archaeologist: How did the Parthenon's

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

Archaeologist: How did the Parthenon's stonemasons manage to carve columns that all bulged outward in the center in precisely the same way?

Curious Fact

How did the Parthenon's builders manage to carve columns that all bulged outward in the center in the exactly the same way?

Hypothesis

They relied on a scale drawing like the one at Didyma (it's a profile view of a column surrounded by a grid, which makes it possible to determine the correct width at every height of the column).

Evaluate

Whenever the question stem uses the noun hypothesis (rather than argument / reasoning), we know going into the paragraph that the author will be trying to Explain a Curious Fact (i.e. trying to solve a causal mystery).

We find the curious fact and ask it as a question, although in this case it actually was presented as a question!

We find the author's explanation / hypothesis and make sure we understand the causal story they're telling.

Then we think along two different dimensions: 1. Could there be some Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact? 2. How plausible is the Author's Explanation?

How else could they have carved columns that bulged outward in precisely the same way?

Hmm. Maybe someone stood back 100 yds to get a good view of all the columns and yelled through a bullhorn, "Take a little more off column 3!" Maybe they created a giant mold for the columns, so every column came out the same because it was mixed and hardened in the same mold.

Honestly, for a question as technical as , LSAT doesn't expect us to have any common sense imagination for Alternate Explanations. If they haven't given us any crumbs of a hint or if it's not the sort of situation that has a common sense hypothesis attached to it, then they probably aren't testing Alternate Explanations.

How plausible is the notion that they used a scale drawing like the one at Didyma?

Are the two construction projects similar enough that the same tactic could have worked for both, or are there important differences where you could use a scale drawing for Didyma but not for the Parthenon?

Did the stonemasons who worked on the Parthenon have the same knowledge and training that those who worked on Didyma did? Were they familiar with this scale drawing technique?

Goal

Like most Explain the Curious Fact arguments, we don't have a specific prediction.

Since this is Strengthen, we will justify our answer by saying it either 1. rules out an Alternate Explanation (for how they got the columns to bulge similarly) or 2. adds plausibility to the Author's Explanation (that they used a scale drawing like the one at Didyma)

Strengthen questions are more likely to add plausibility than to rule out an alternate explanation, so on a first pass, we primarily look for answers that seem to do #2.

Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the archaeologist's hypothesis?

Modern attempts to recreate columns
No Impact: modern attempts
It really doesn't make any difference how successful modern attempts have / haven't been. If we said that a modern team tried to use a scale drawing like the one at Didyma and couldn't seem to get the columns to bulge identically, that would weaken the plausibility that a scale drawing was the correct explanation of how the Parthenon was built.
1% picked this
The construction of the temple
Weakens Very Slightly
This somewhat detracts from the plausibility of the author's explanation. If Didyma happened over a century after the Parthenon, it opens up the possibility that at the time of the Parthenon's construction, these scale drawings didn't even exist yet.
4% picked this
Correct
Scale drawings were commonly used
Why this is right
This adds to the plausibility of the Author's Explanation. He thinks that they used a scale drawing like the one at Didyma to get those matching column bulges. This answer says that scale drawings were commonly used in many types of construction. Okay, so it sounds like that could be a correct guess. The fact that Didyma was a temple (whereas the Parthenon is a government building, I believe) might have been a concern. Are these buildings too different to have employed the same building method? But learning that scale drawings were common in many types of construction increases the odds that the people building the Parthenon were familiar with scale drawings, had access to them, had seen them before, etc. On a first pass, I was not attracted to this, because it's very unspecific to the Parthenon. But it does more than nothing, and that's all it takes to win the contest of "most strengthens" if every other answer does nothing or goes the wrong way. If we're trying to figure out how Jessica killed Billy and our hypothesis is "she poisoned him with arsenic", it somewhat adds plausibility to that hypothesis to be told that "arsenic was commonly found in the pantry of many types of homes in the city where Jessica and Billy lived".
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
87% picked this
The surviving columns at Didyma
Unclear Impact
Some people might argue this weakens, because it makes the construction project at Didyma seem significantly different than the one at the Parthenon. The sort of techniques you use to build a skyscraper might be different from the ones you use to build a building half its size. Other people might think this strengthens, in the sense of "If scale drawings could handle the challenge of super tall Didyma, then they must have been capable of handling the more modest challenge of the Parthenon". The fact that we could argue it weakens or strengthens illustrates that it has no clear impact.
3% picked this
The Parthenon's stonemasons had considerable
Weakens, if anything
This doesn't suggest anything about scale drawings, so it's not adding plausibility to the author's explanation. It almost seems to be suggesting an Alternate Explanation for how the masons got the matching column bulges -- they were just wicked good masons with lots of column-carving experience.
5% 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