Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q19 Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human like

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: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat found in many Neanderthal fireplaces.

Conclusion (probably)

Neanderthals probably preserved meat found in many Neanderthal fireplaces.

Evidence

Burnt lichen and grass have been found in N. fireplaces, and a fire of lichen/grass produces a lot of smoke but doesn't produce nearly as much heat/light as a wood fire.

Evaluate

There is a missing link assumption somewhere, since "preserved meat" appears only in the Conclusion. What is "preserved meat" attached to in the Evidence?

Apparently, we're assuming that fires that produce a lot of smoke but not a lot of heat/light are good for preserving meat.

However, since we're interpreting the significance of archaeological evidence, we could also use our Curious Fact / Explanation mindset.

Curious Fact What are all these burnt lichen/grass fires all about? They produce a lot of smoke, but they don't produce as much heat or light as a wood fire.

Author's Explanation The lichen/grass smoky fires were created to smoke meat, for preservation.

We're supposed to react to this template by considering 2 different things: - could there be an Alternative Explanation for this Curious Fact? - how plausible is the Author's Explanation?

So why else might the Neanderthals have been burning smoky lichen/grass fires? Maybe they didn't have any wood, so this was the best they could get. Maybe it kept away some predators. Maybe it was for some other cooking purpose.

How plausible is the Author's Explanation? His story assumes that there was meat around, that Neanderthals were aware that if you smoked meat it would preserve for longer, that they had any need/use for preserved meat, etc.

Goal

Since this is Weaken, we want an answer to suggest an Alternate Explanation for why they were making lichen/grass smoky fires, or to hurt the plausibility of the story that they were making these smoky fires in order to preserve meat.

19.

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

In close proximity to the
Strengthens
This rules out the idea that they were using lichen/grass fires for their regular cooking, because they were desperate and had to settle for a crappy fire. According to this answer, they definitely had access to something like wood fires, so using the smoky grass fire was a choice, not a necessity. That rules out an alternate explanation, so it strengthens.
22% picked this
Correct
In the region containing the
Why this is right
This suggests an Alternate Explanation: they were setting lichen/grass fires for all their fire needs, because they were desperate and had to settle for a crappy fire. They didn't have any better options for fire than lichen/grass. So we shouldn't interpret their smoky fires in the sense of, "Hmmm, they must have really wanted smoke for some reasons. I know — they were preserving meats!" Instead, we should interpret their smoky fires as, "In this area where they lived, that type of fire was the best you could do." They weren't seeking the smoky quality because it would work well for a niche meat-preserving technique. They were stuck with the smoky quality because it was their only source of fire. Could they still have preserved meats with those smoky fires? Sure. But the reason this answer weakens is because it suffices to explain the smoky fires. We don't need to invent the 'preserved meat' hypothesis in order to explain smoky fires, if smoky fires were the only type of fire possible for these guys.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
67% picked this
Some of the fireplaces containing
Too Weak Strengthens, if Anything
Words that mean "at least one data point", such as some / sometimes / can / may / might / could / not all, are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. They don't have much impact. In this case, the data point would be a Strengthening one, anyway. If the Neanderthals are going out of there way to procure this lichen for the sake of getting a smoky grass fire going, then they have some specific plans with this lichen, some specific needs. This boosts the plausibility that they were engaged in some very intentional cooking technique like smoking meat to preserve it.
3% picked this
There is clear evidence that
Strengthens, if Anything
We don't care much about what was happening with Neanderthals later in time. But if the later Neanderthals preserved meat, then that adds some plausibility to the notion that the earlier Neanderthals (of 60,000 years ago) preserved meat. The fact that the later Neanderthals did so by some way other than smoking the meat doesn't really undermine that. The author's conclusion is that the Neanderthals probably preserved meat. That conclusion doesn't care by what means they preserved it. The author is definitely assuming that these N's from 60,000 years ago with the lichen/grass fires did so by smoking it, but she's not assuming all N's did it that way.
7% picked this
The ability to preserve meat
Strengthens
This adds some plausibility to the Author's Explanation. It offers a reason why the Neanderthals would have had a vested interest in developing the technique of smoking meat to preserve it.
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