Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q4 A rare Roman bronze helmet

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 rare Roman bronze helmet was recently discovered in England and sold to a private collector.

Conclusion (therefore)

The law is inadequate as a means of giving the English people access to their archaeological heritage.

Evidence

The law requires finders of valuable antiquities to offer them to English museums at reasonable prices.

It failed to apply to the Roman helmet that was recently discovered in England (and sold to a private collector), because the helmet is neither prehistoric nor made of precious metal.

Evaluate

There is a New Concept in the Conclusion, because it's talking about whether a law is / isn't an adequate means of giving the English people access to their archaeological heritage.

What do we mean by "archaeological heritage"? What is the author assuming would be included there?

What do we mean by ? How much access are the English people entitled to? What makes a means of access adequate or inadequate?

We know that the author is peeved at this law. Why? Had the law applied to the bronze helmet, then the helmet would have to be offered to an English museum. Since the law didn't apply, the helmet was sold to a private collector.

The author is thinking that, .

Goal

There are a couple Missing Links / Ideas here.

1. The author is assuming that this bronze helmet is part of the English people's archaeological heritage.

2. The author is assuming that if such an item from their heritage ends up with a private collector rather than a museum, then the English people don't have adequate access to it.

We might otherwise see answers Defending against an objection, such as:

- the Roman bronze helmet is not more properly considered to be part of the archaeological heritage of the Italian people

- private collectors do not give the English more access to any antiquities they own than do English museums.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Most English people want important
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: want Too Strong: most The word "most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it on Necessary Assumption (it's generally only correct if the word "most" appears in the conclusion). After all, the correct answer on Necessary Assumption is an idea that would weaken the argument if we negated it. But when you go from "Most English people want X" to "Not-Most English people want X", you're really just switching from "at least 51% want it" to "at most 49% want it". Not a big deal, so not a big objection. The argument also has nothing to do with what English people want. This argument is only about what the author considers to be an adequate / inadequate level of access. She assumes that having a museum possess an important archaeological item provides more adequate access than having a private collector possess such an item.
2% picked this
Correct
The Roman helmet is part
Why this is right
Like all Missing Link / Idea correct answers, this answer choice contains wording that is all internal to the stimulus. This is establishing that the author clearly seems to be thinking that this helmet was part of the English people's archaeological heritage, and that because the law failed to get the helmet into a museum, it failed provide adequate access to that heritage. If we negated this and said, "Yo, author -- this helmet is not part of the archaeological heritage of the English people", would that be an objection? Totally! That would mean that the author's evidence is completely irrelevant to her conclusion. That's a huge weakener. She's concluding something about the law, in relation to its ability to give access to English people's archaeological heritage. Her only evidence is about how the law handled this Roman helmet. If the helmet isn't part of the English heritage, then her evidence has nothing to do with her conclusion.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
94% picked this
The Roman helmet is more
Out of Scope Comparison
Out of Scope Comparison: more valuable Too Strong: most The argument never talks about the value of this helmet at all. The argument suggests that the author probably considers the helmet to qualify as a "valuable antiquity", but "valuable" is an Absolute idea. This answer is saying "more valuable", which is a Relative idea. Switching from absolute to relative language (or vice versa) is almost never correct. Additionally this uses the ever-toxic word "most", which is almost always wrong on Necessary Assumption. Does it make any difference to the author's argument whether the helmet is more valuable than at least 51% of the items housed in English museum vs. whether it's only more valuable than 49% of the items? Of course not. Since negating this answer would have no effect on the argument, it can't be right.
0% picked this
The private collector did not
Out of Scope Comparison: pay more
At first this looks enticing, because the word "not" is famously part of correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender answers). Would it become a big objection to this argument if we said, "The private collector did pay more for the helmet than an English museum would have"? Not at all. The author is saying the law failed to get this helmet into a museum. It's not talking about specific payment amounts at all.
1% picked this
No English museum could have
Out of Scope Comparison
Out of Scope Comparison: pay more Too Strong: no As we mentioned with (D), the concept of how much the private collector or a museum paid is totally irrelevant to this argument. If the helmet is part of the English heritage and the law failed to force the finder of the helmet to offer it to a museum, then the author can argue that the law failed to give English people adequate access to items from their heritage. If we negate this and say, "There is at least one English museum that could have paid more for the helmet than the collector did", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all.
2% 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