Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S4 · Q26 A recent archaeological find

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 recent archaeological find in what was once the ancient kingdom of Macedonia contains the remains of the largest tomb ever found in the region.

Conclusion (it must be)

The recently discovered tomb, the largest ever found, must be the tomb of Alexander the Great.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

Alexander the Great would have had the largest tomb.

Intermediate Conclusion

Alexander the Great was the greatest Macedonian in history.

Evidence (after all)

He conquered an empire that stretched from Greece to much of Asia.

Evaluate

Since this argument contains a couple Intermediate Conclusions, there are a few different reasoning moves we could impugn:

Given that ... Alex conquered an empire from Greece to Asia, could we argue that ... he wasn't the greatest Macedonian?

Maybe someone else conquered more. Maybe "amount of land conquered" isn't the most important factor to consider in ranking greatest Macedonians.

Given that ... he was the greatest Macedonian could we argue that ... he wouldn't have had the largest tomb?

Maybe their culture had a lot of humility surrounding death, and everyone was buried the same way. Maybe Alex was killed in the field of battle and wouldn't have had any tomb.

Given that ... he would have had the largest tomb, could we argue that ... the recently discovered tomb isn't necessarily Alex's tomb?

Maybe the recently discovered tomb isn't actually the largest tomb, just the largest one found so far. Maybe we'll discover an even bigger tomb someday.

Goal

Given that this argument makes multiple reasoning moves, it has multiple vulnerabilities, so we'll have to just scrutinize each answer the way we always can on Flaw: 1. is this answer descriptively true? 2. if so, is this a complaint about the logic?

26.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. takes for granted that greatness

    Too Strong: only

    The author is definitely assuming that greatness can be attained by military conquest, because the author goes from "Because he conquered such a big empire, he was the greatest Macedonian in history". But the author hasn't assumed such a strong idea that there is no possible other way to greatness.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    takes for granted that the

    Why this is right

    Is the author assuming that this recently discovered tomb (the largest ever found in the region) is in fact the largest tomb? Sure. The author thinks Alexander would have the largest tomb, and the author thinks that this is the largest tomb. That's how the author arrives at her conclusion that this recently discovered tomb must be the tomb of Alexander. If we negated this, we would get the objection, "Yo, author -- this tomb is not the largest tomb the Macedonians built." That would badly weaken the author's argument, because she believes that Alexander is built in the Macedonians' largest tomb.

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

    82% picked this

  3. does not show how the

    Irrelevant Comparison

    It is true that the author doesn't compare this tomb with other tombs from the same period but different regions. But that doesn't point to any logical problem. We wouldn't be able to say, "Hey, author --- the Chinese built an even bigger tomb from the same area, so maybe that's where Alexander the Great is buried." Our author only needs to discuss Macedonian tombs because the argument is (quite reasonably) assuming that this famous Macedonian was buried in a Macedonian tomb, not a Chinese one.

    5% picked this

  4. fails to evaluate the significance

    Irrelevant Objection

    It's true that the author did not dwell on the fact that Alexander's empire collapsed after his death, but there's not really a great way to turn that into an objection. "Hey, author -- since his empire collapsed after he died, he wasn't really the greatest Macedonian in history?" That's a pretty weak objection. Would we really hold it against Alexander that he couldn't keep his entire together from the grave?

    5% picked this

  5. takes for granted that archaeologists

    Not a Reasoning Objection

    It is true that the author is implicitly trusting that archaeologists are correct in their assessments of the size of this tomb. If we negated this, it would be saying "archaeologists cannot determine the size of the tomb form its remains." That seems to attack the credibility of the archaeological evidence, but two problems with picking this: 1. The argument only said that they discovered "the remains of the largest tomb ever found". It didn't say that they determined the size of the tomb based purely on its remains. Maybe they looked at the size of the burial plot or had other clues for ascertaining the size of the tomb. 2. This really wouldn't be a complaint about the author's reasoning. This isn't attacking any move the author made. It would just be attacking the legitimacy of a background premise.

    3% 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