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
It's natural that beads, initially just for decoration, came to be used as currency.
A lot of objects that have been used as currency started out solely as decorative objects.
We need to get from "if this has happened before" to "we shouldn't be surprised it's happening again".
Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the argument above?
The similarity between the secondary
The primary use of beads and other things that became currency is decoration. The secondary use would be currency. So a better answer would say "the similarity between the primary uses of two different objects can cause the secondary use to be transferred to the other".
3% picked this
The similarity between the primary
This is better than (A), but the author isn't really talking about the secondary use being transferred over. She's just saying "if it happened before, it's only natural it will happen again". The wording can cause is very weak, and if we're trying to prove a conclusion that's saying "the secondary uses are the same", we'd like to see a stronger punch there: "if two objects have a similar primary use, then it's only natural that they would share a secondary use."
15% picked this
An object having a certain
Why this is right
Beads are an object that have the same original use (adornment / decoration) as do other objects, such as gold, silver, and feathers. According to this rule, since the derivative (secondary) use of these objects was as currency, it is likely that beads would also come to be used as currency. If it was likely, then that helps support the wording it is natural that beads became currency.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% picked this
An object cannot take on
This rules says doesn't stop being ? can't get used in used in original capacity new way The contrapositive is used in a new way ? no longer used old way That doesn't reflect a move the author made or match up well with the conversation. The author was saying that these other objects were originally used solely as decorative. So when they started to be used as currency, it can just be an additional use.
1% picked this
The more an object is
This does not help us make a move from "if these things went from decoration to currency, it's no shock that beads went from decoration to currency". The sliding scale nature of this principle "the more it's used to represent value, the more it's valued for certain uses" makes it hard to match up. A better answer would be something like "the more something is valued as decoration, the more likely it is to be used to represent value in general".
11% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.