Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q15 A scientific team compared

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 scientific team compared gold samples from several ancient artifacts with gold samples from an ancient mine in western Asia.

Conclusion

Gold in the artifacts was probably dug from the ancient mine.

Evidence

The ratio of trace elements in the artifacts is similar to the ancient mine, and dissimilar to that from any other known mine.

Evaluate

We can use a Curious Fact / Explanation template to break this down. Curious Fact: Where did the gold in these artifacts come from? Author's Story: Probably that ancient mine.

Weaken this template by 1. some OTHER WAY to explain the curious fact 2. hurting the plausibility of the AUTHOR'S WAY

Goal

Let's look for an answer that gives us a different way to explain where the gold in the artifacts came from, or look for an answer hurting the author's story, that it comes from the ancient mine, since its ratio of trace elements matches the samples from the ancient mine but not samples from any other known mine.

15.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Correct

    The ancient mine tapped into

    Why this is right

    This suggests at an alternative explanation for where the gold may have come from. It didn't need to be dug out from the ancient mine. Some of the nearby riverbeds had significant qualities of this same gold. The gold in these artififacts could have just come from pieces people picked out of the riverbed.

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

    67% picked this

  2. The ancient mine may have

    Helps Author's Explanation

    This goes the opposite way by making the Author's Story more plausible. If the artifacts and the mine belong to the same civilization, it's even more plausible that the two are connected.

    3% picked this

  3. The ancient mine was first

    No Impact

    If this were reversed, then it would Weaken by destroying the plausibility of the author's explanation (if the artifacts were made before the ancient mine was first operated). This somewhat strengthens by establishing that the ancient mine was already up and running. Some people may have thought we could say "if it was first operated many centuries before the artifacts were made, doesn't that make it seem like the mine would have already run out of gold?" Maybe, but I don't know the lifespan of gold mines. Also, it's possible that the civilization running the ancient mine had exhumed the gold long ago but hadn't made it into an artifact until centuries later.

    6% picked this

  4. Ancient gold artifacts were often

    No Impact

    This doesn't help us assess the mystery of where the gold originally came from. It move us away from believing it came from this ancient mine where the ratio of trace elements matches.

    20% picked this

  5. Much of the gold dug

    Mildly Helps Author's Explanation

    The fact that gold from this ancient mine got spread around the world means that the gold was available to be turned into artifacts in lots of different places in the world. Had this answer been reversed (most of the gold stayed very local to the mine), then we might be able to lower plausibility, but we would also need to know whether the artifacts came from near the mine or far away.

    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