Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S1 · Q2 In 1893, an excavation led by Wilhelm

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

In 1893, an excavation led by Wilhelm Dörpfeld uncovered an ancient city he believed to be Troy, the site of the war described in Homer’s epic poem the Iliad.

Conclusion

That belief cannot be correct. rephrase: The ancient city Wilhelm discovered was not the famous Troy, the site of the war described in 'the Iliad'.

Evidence

In 'The Iliad', the Trojan War lasted ten years, but the ancient city Wilhelm discovered could not have withstood a siege lasting ten years.

Evaluate

This one doesn't seem like a ripe contender for a Missing Link assumption, so let's go into Objection mode instead, and then we can think of Defender assumptions that rule out our objections.

Given that ... the Iliad says the war lasted ten years but this city could not have withstood a war lasting ten years,

How could we argue that ... this city Wilhelm found was Troy, the site of that war?

The two premises are irreconcilable. The book says the war was ten years. Reality says this city is too small for a ten year siege.

Do we have to assume the book is correct about the length of the war? Maybe Homer exaggerated the length for dramatic effect.

Do we have to assume that in a ten year war, this city was under siege the entire ten years? Maybe this city is the site of the war, but only some of the ten year war was actually "a siege" on this city?

Goal

Let's look for an answer ruling out one of these objections, saying something like: - Homer's estimate of the 10 year war is accurate - if the war were ten years, then this city would have necessarily been under siege that whole time

The correct answer, when negated, will weaken the argument. In other words, it will allow us to argue that Wilhelm really did discover the Troy, the site of Trojan War.

2.

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

  1. In 1893, scholars knew of

    Too Strong: no other

    The author doesn't need to believe that in 1893 there not a single other contender city for Troy. Just because the one discovered by Wilhelm is the only one mentioned doesn't mean we get to act like it was the only one being considered by scholars.

    1% picked this

  2. The Iliad does not provide

    Too Strong: provides zero clues

    This has the lovable ruling out "not / no" that so many correct Necessary Assumption answers have. If we negate it, does it weaken to say, "Hey, author -- you know the Iliad does provide some clues about the specific location of Troy." No, that doesn't weaken or strengthen. Until we know whether those clues corroborate or undermine the city that Wilhelm found, we have no idea of clues in the book strengthens or weakens the idea that this city was Troy.

    2% picked this

  3. Dörpfeld’s team found no evidence

    Too Strong: found no evidence

    This has the lovable ruling out "not / no" that so many correct Necessary Assumption answers have. If we negate it, does it weaken to say, "Hey, author -- you know Wilhelm did find some evidence of a siege there." At first, yes, that does seem to weaken. But it doesn't in reality. After all, the author isn't denying that the city Wilhelm found was ever involved in a war. She's only saying it wasn't involved in any ten year war (too small) and thus wouldn't be a good contender for being Troy. She could happily agree that, "Sure, Wilhelm found some evidence that this city was at some point under siege. But Wilhelm didn't find evidence that this city was under a ten year siege, and with good reason, since a city this small couldn't handle that long a siege."

    8% picked this

  4. The city excavated by Dörpfeld’s

    Too Strong: many Weakens

    This is tempting since we would presume it's probably the case, if we were thinking about probably led up to Dorpfeld concluding that this city was Troy. But it's not a necessary idea for the author. If we negate this and say, "The city did not have many features that scholars believed Troy had", that would actually strengthen the author's argument that this city was not Troy.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The Iliad accurately represents the

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, we can say, "Yo, author --- I know the Iliad said it was a ten year war, and that's why you're disqualifying this city from contention, but the Iliad did not accurately represent the duration of the war. In reality, it was only a couple years long, and so a city this small could have withstood a siege of that length. And thus this city could be Troy, the site of the war." The author is treating a detail from the Iliad as though it's a historical fact: "Since 'we know' that the war was 10 years, and since this city is too small for a ten year war, this city can't be the site of the war." But we don't know the war was 10 years. That's just a detail from an epic poem. Who said it's accurate or even intended to be truthful?

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

    87% 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