Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S4 · Q4 Until recently, anthropologists generally agreed

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

Until recently, anthropologists generally agreed that higher primates originated about 30 million years ago in the Al Fayyum region of Egypt.

Background

We used to agree that higher primates originated about 30 million years ago in Egypt.

Now, some are claiming that a 40 million year old jawbone found in Burma suggests that the higher primates originated in Burma.

Conclusion

It's premature to say, from this jawbone, that higher primates originated in Burma.

Evaluate

Since the blank is preceded by "for" (one of the big 4 premise indicators, F.A.B.S., for / after all / because / since), we know that we're trying to strengthen the claim that .

Goal

So we just need an answer that says something like "this bone could have belonged to lower primates" or or something that would make it sketchy to think, "Ah, we've found the earliest high primate."

4.

Which one of the following, if true, is the most logical completion of the paragraph above?

  1. there are no more primate

    Too Weak

    This is about the quantity of primates living in the respective countries today, but we're 30-40 million years removed from the issue at hand. Also, this is just talking about primates in general, when all we care about is higher primates.

    1% picked this

  2. several anthropologists, using different dating

    Opposite

    This helps to strengthen the credibility of the claim, since the claim is based on believing this jawbone is 40 million years old.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    higher primates cannot be identified

    Why this is right

    This basically tells us that the jawbone is not good evidence for the existence of higher primates, because higher primates didn't have a telltale jawbone. You'd need to see other stuff to know it was a higher primate, so to conclude it was a higher primate on the basis of a jawbone would be premature.

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

    86% picked this

  4. several prominent anthropologists do not

    Too Weak

    This isn't addressing the evidence at hand, so it doesn't feel like a normal LSAT answer. And the fact that you have several prominent anthropologists thinking we're not looking in either of the correct two places just isn't as strong a rebuttal as (C), which is saying, "You need more than a jawbone to ID a higher primate, bro". This is just a He Said / She Said weakener -- "it's too soon to say whether you're right since there are others who disagree".

    3% picked this

  5. other archaeological expeditions in Burma

    Opposite

    This would be more evidence in favor of the claim that the earliest higher primates originated in Burma.

    7% 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