Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q6 A purse containing 32 ancient gold

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

A purse containing 32 ancient gold coins that had been minted in Morocco was discovered in the ruins of an ancient Jordanian city some 4,000 kilometers to the east of Morocco.

Statements

A purse with coins minted in Morocco was found 4,000 km east of Morocco, in a Jordanian city that was an important trading center along the trade route linking China and Europe.

Pilgrims going between Morocco and Mecca would also stop in this city.

A trader's purse would probably have contained a more diverse set of coins (than what was found in this purse).

Evaluate

Our goal is to put claims together to derive something, but there aren't traditional clue words here like Conditionals, Causal claims, or Pivots.

It seems more like this is an Explain Curious Fact setup (pretty rare among Most Supported questions). In fact, the question stem describes each answer choice as a "hypothesis", i.e. "a causal explanation for something".

It's odd for this purse of coins to be in a city 4000 km east of where it was minted. How did these coins get here?

We have two potential hypotheses: - this city lies on a trading route from China to Europe, so maybe the coins got there via traders trading with each other.

- Pilgrims would stop here on their voyage between Morocco and Mecca, so maybe a pilgrim began in Morocco with these coins in their purse and then dropped the purse in this city en route to Mecca.

The final claim helps to make the 1st hypothesis less likely. If this purse really belonged to a trader, it probably would have contained a more diverse set of coins.

Goal

So it seems like the most supported way to Solve the Causal Mystery of where these coins came from is to guess that they belonged to a pilgrim heading from Morocco to Mecca?

That's a pretty speculative guess, so if there's anything more provable we'll gladly pick that.

6.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following hypotheses?

  1. Moroccan coins were more valuable

    Unsupported Comparison: more valuable

    Nothing in the passage deals with how valuable these coins were or weren't, so we have no basis for thinking these Moroccan coins were more or less valuable than any other coin.

    1% picked this

  2. Most gold coins available during

    Too Strong: most

    We know that the 32 coins in this purse were minted in Morocco. That is no reason to believe that more than 50% of the coins available during this time were minted in Morocco. This is the age old trap on Necessary Assumption and Most Supported of acting like "the only X mentioned in the paragraph is therefore the only or the most important X there is overall".

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    The purse with the gold

    Why this is right

    This would be the most supported hypothesis for where this purse came from, given our available facts. We're not saying we can PROVE it, but we were only given two potential theories for how these coins got so far from Morocco (trader or pilgrim) and the last sentence made it seem like the trader hypothesis is an unlikely one.

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

    84% picked this

  4. Gold coins were the only

    Too Strong: only

    We actually don't know if gold coins were any medium of exchange used in the ancient city. The fact that a purse with these Moroccan coins was found in this city doesn't mean people in this city traded with these coins. But it would be a reasonable speculation to think an important trading center would consider these coins as a medium of exchange. It's an incredibly extreme speculation to think the only possible way to trade goods in this city was to use gold coins (no bartering, no other forms of currency). This, like (B), is playing off the "since they only mentioned gold coins, maybe there were only gold coins" type of trap mentality.

    4% picked this

  5. Pilgrims and traders in the

    Out of Scope: interacted

    Nothing in the passage gives us any reason to think that pilgrims and traders were or weren't likely to have interacted with one another.

    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.

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