Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q16 Archaeologist: The people who lived

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

Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area deposited their rubbish in pits near their dwellings.

Conclusion

The rubbish tells us very little about the possession of the people who lived nearby.

Evidence

The pits have been subject to erosion over long periods of time, with destructive effects on the rubbish within.

Evaluate

This question stem is asking us to strengthen the grounds on which the conclusion is based, so it's specifically asking us to improve the force / relevance of the evidence.

In order for us to figure out what the answer might sound like, we often benefit from thinking about how we'd object to the argument. If we adopt a Weaken mindset, we can get our brain to think of objections, and then those objections become ways to Strengthen the argument (if we rule out or go the opposite direction of those ideas).

given that erosion has had destructive effects on the rubbish within these pits, how could someone still argue that the rubbish does tell us a lot about the possessions of the people who lived nearby?

I guess we'd just say, .

Goal

Since want to strengthen the evidence, we would want to rule out these objections we just made.

Correct answers could sound like: - oh, no you can't. You can't make out what any of this stuff is. Too damaged. - nope, can't learn anything important by doing a chemical analysis of the eroded trash. - this was the worst kind of erosion

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the grounds presented by the archaeologist for drawing the conclusion in the argument above?

  1. The pits contain certain tools

    Weakens

    This makes it sound like these trash pits actually do tell us some interesting things about the possessions of the people who lived nearby. We just discovered new tools they had!

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    Scavengers routinely salvaged the most

    Why this is right

    This adds to the force of the author's evidence: That pile of rubbish? You're not gonna find anything in there. Erosion has had really destructive effects on it. Also, the stuff that was durable that might have still been worth finding has already been looted by scavengers. This answer helps shoot down a potential objection: "couldn't there be some stuff in the trash pile that erosion hasn't ruined?" According to this answer, "Nah ... the durable stuff got stolen from the pits already. Scavengers be scavenging, amirite?" If we were bothered that this felt like a new premise rather than an augmentation of the current evidence, we might notice that the author did say "among other reasons, the pits have been subject to erosion".

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

    71% picked this

  3. The soil surrounding the rubbish

    Weak / Unclear Impact

    Words with minimal force like "some, sometimes, can, may, might, not all" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. This answer makes it sound like the soil around the pits might tell us that the people made bricks? Or is it saying that more modern humans have used this soil for bricks? We can't tell. Even if it's talking about the original inhabitants of the dwellings, this answer has nothing to do with whether or not the trash in the pit is still in good enough shape to teach us anything about the people hwo lived there.

    8% picked this

  4. The pits in which the

    Weakens, if Anything

    Mainly this answer just makes me think less of these people -- you converted your graveyard into your landfill? Someone at that village council meeting was like, "Well ... a graveyard is kinda like a trash can for humans!" This answer has no clear impact or if anything it suggests that going through the rubbish in these pits we might also stumble across some remains of the people who lived there. Since people are often buried with some of their possessions, this would increase the likelihood of learning something by going through these pits.

    5% picked this

  5. Certain types of items were

    Weaker Than Correct Answer

    This answer seems to somewhat strengthen. Learning that certain possessions would never be found in the trash can help the author say "this trash will tell us little about their possessions". But the weakness of "certain types of items" leaves room for there to still be plenty of stuff that did go in the trash that we could learn from. This doesn't have as much pessimistic impact on the usefulness of these trash sites as (B) does -- it makes it sounds like people have already beaten us to the site and stolen all the good stuff we would have wanted to find. This answer is more like, "you won't be able to learn about all their possessions from the trash"(since some things were never trashed).

    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