Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S1 · Q20 Patterson: Bone flutes dating

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

Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic are the earliest evidence for music.

Patterson's Conclusion

Music probably first arose during the Upper Paleolithic period.

Patterson's Evidence

Bone flutes from this U.P. period are the earliest evidence for music.

Garza's Response

The U.P period was unusual for its intensive use of bone.

Stuff made of bone can last forever, so we still dig it up archaeologically. Meanwhile, other common instrument materials like wood do not survive well in dug-up ruins.

Evaluate

It might take us a bit to process what Garza is saying, but it's crucial we understand the point she's making.

The fact that her paragraph started with "But" suggests that she is pushing back against Patterson's notion that "music probably arose during the Upper Paleolithic period".

She isn't proposing a specific alternative period when music arose, but she seems to be questioning how Patterson interprets the evidence.

Since the earliest archaeological evidence of musical instruments we have are bone flutes from this U.P. period, Patterson assumes that this is when music started.

But Garza is saying,

Her idea is kind of an alternate explanation for why the earliest instruments we've found were made of bone. It's not because humans started with bone instruments; it's because only bone instruments would survive from that long ago.

Goal

If we know the typical 8 method answers (analogy, counter/example, ruling out options, implications of logic, distinctions, alternate explanations, overlooked considerations, dubious assumptions), this one seems to feel like calling out a Dubious Assumption or suggesting an Alternate Explanation.

Look for something like, or .

20.

Garza responds to Patterson by doing which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    arguing that the body of

    Why this is right

    This answer is so, so dumb. This description applies to every rebuttal ever. Since all we're looking for is a true description, we'll pick it. But, man! What a waste of time giving this tough paragraph any sophisticated thinking, when all the answer is pointing out is that the 2nd person wasn't convinced of the 1st person's conclusion.

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

    54% picked this

  2. offering evidence to challenge the

    Doesn't Challenge Truth of Premise

    Patterson's premise is that "the earliest evidence for music are these bone flutes from the U.P. period". Garza isn't trying to challenge that. She isn't saying we have earlier evidence for music. She's just saying it's possible that there were earlier instruments that never survived the millennia to become archaeological evidence. On most Method of Response questions, we see one answer say that the 2nd person was disputing the truth of the 1st person's evidence. To my knowledge, that's never been right. It's not the LSAT style to contradict premises. People argue around them. "Yes, your premise is true, but your assumption is not, so your conclusion could be false".

    23% picked this

  3. presenting a counterexample to the

    No Counterexample Not a General Conclusion

    Patterson's conclusion is somewhat specific: "Music probably first arose during the Upper Paleolithic period". It's a stretch to consider that a generalization. And there's no counterexample. Garza didn't present a specific case of music that existed prior to the Upper Paleolithic period.

    8% picked this

  4. presenting an argument analogous to

    No Analogy

    There's no analogous argument presented. An analogous argument sounds like, "Hogwash! That's like saying that my daughter Jane first learned curse words from Doug because the earliest evidence I have of her cursing is when she was in Doug's class."

    4% picked this

  5. using Patterson's evidence to draw

    Too Strong: inconsistent

    Inconsistent = contradictory. If Garza drew a conclusion contradicting Patterson's, that would mean that Garza concluded that "music did not arise during the Upper Paleolithic". Her disagreement isn't that strong. If she were talking to a person of faith, she would be agnostic, not an atheist. She doesn't actively believe that Patterson is wrong, she just thinks it's premature to draw that conclusion because there's a good chance that earlier evidence of music wouldn't have survived to be part of the archaeological record.

    12% 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