Q20 - Recently discovered prehistoric rock

[pistachio2014]

Hi,
I don't really understand why (C) is the correct answer. Please explain. Thanks a bunch.

[aileenann]

So first thing we want to notice - this is a strengthen/weaken question...but it's paired with EXCEPT. That means that we're expecting four of the answer choices to weaken the argument and one...not to weaken the argument. This answer - the one that doesn't weaken - might strengthen, but it also might be irrelevant altogether.

So as I go through my answers, I'll expect each except one to weaken the argument.

Let's although think briefly about the core of this argument before we jump into analyzing the answer choices. It looks it me as though we could fairly summarize our core as:

There are no sea creatures in the paintings, and the painters would have needed to eat sea creatures to make the crossing to where we found the paintings
THEREFORE
The paintings were not mostly a description of the current diet of the painters.

(A) weakens by suggesting that the most current diet of the painters at the time of the painting did not need to include sea animals.
(B) suggests that what we are seeing is not a full sample - so the author's argument is less damning because key data that might show the sea animals is missing.
(C) - the correct answer - is kind of irrelevant. The author's argument is driven by the lack of sea animals - it doesn't really matter how many land animals are in the paintings.
(D) weakens the argument by undermining the argument's whole point about the sea animals - if the painters didn't need to eat sea animals, the paintings could very well represent their current diet without containing any images of sea animals.
(E) weakens by questioning another part of the argument - pointing out that if the painters were not seafaring, they also would not have had to eat sea animals.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have comments/questions

[pistachio2014]

Hello,
Thanks for your description! After rereading the question, I noticed that the author doesn't actually spell out what was in the paintings (except that they didn't have sea animals)-- could've been paintings of clouds--we don't know. So I can see why (C) is irrelevant and therefore the correct answer.

On the test, do you suggest using process of elimination and crossing out the 4 weaken answers, leaving with one supporting/irrelevant answer? This seems like a time-consuming question.

[aileenann]

It should not be any more time consuming than any other question, as you should ALWAYS work by process of elimination. Unless you're looking at an easy question with a really obvious answer (and query whether, if it seems obvious, it's a little too obvious).

You are right though in that EXCEPT questions take a little time to reformulate. But it's worth the reformulation to make sure you're answering the right question.

[mcrittell]

So B weakens the A's conclusion because if we don't have the full picture, then it's possible that the description could show that the cave paintings did describe the painters' diets?

[timmydoeslsat]

So B weakens the A's conclusion because if we don't have the full picture, then it's possible that the description could show that the cave paintings did describe the painters' diets?

That is exactly right.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hmm.. well if we are saying that (A) weakens the argument by "suggesting that the most current diet of the painters at the time of the painting did not need to include sea animals" (quoting alieen here), wouldn't that be an explanation for (C) as well? If the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals, then can't we say that their diet consisted of these land animals since the evidence we have is that this predominant theory was that these cave paintings were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. And if the author is saying this theory cannot be right because they had to eat sea animals, why can't we argue that if (C) were true, then these cave painters diet's consisted of meat and not sea animals? Does my question make sense?

[zhanga]

The argument we're trying to weaken is the criticism against the dominant theory that states cave paintings were largely a description of the current diets of the painters.

The difference between A and C is that A clearly states that the diet of the cave painters consisted of land animals so the absence of sea animals from the paintings doesn't mean that the paintings don't describe their diets.

C however just says the paintings depict many land animals. But since the claim that the paintings represent the diets of the cave paintings is under question, we don't really know if the cave paintings depict land animals because it's a part of the cave painters' diets or maybe the cave painters just liked painting land animals. So it doesn't weaken the argument that the paintings don't represent the diets of the cave paintings since C doesn't tell us that the diet consisted of land animals or in other words, it didn't consist of sea animals.

[maryadkins]

Great discussion, here--and nice explanation, zhanga.

Let me know if you're still unclear...

[romanmuffin]

Why does D weaken the argument?

According to aileen's explanation, it undermines the arguments point about sea animals. But doesn't that require us to assume that meats = land animals? Can't the "meats" in answer D be the meat of sea animals?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

But doesn't that require us to assume that meats = land animals? Can't the "meats" in answer D be the meat of sea animals?

Sure the meats could be sea animals and no it does not require us to assume that that meats = land animals. We can't be sure what sort of meats they are referring to, so we'd include all meats into the calculus. But then, if these people could preserve meats (sea or land animals), one of the argument's two sources of evidence for why the predominant theory is wrong would no longer be true. We wouldn't have to concede that these people would need to eat sea animals. They could have eaten preserved land animals or preserved sea animals from other locations instead.

Hope that helps!

[schwingrocker]

Doesn't D undermine the premise that they must've eaten sea animals and not the argument as a whole? Given the fact that we are supposed to regard a premise as a fact, how does this answer weaken the argument?

[dl0120]

Doesn't D undermine the premise that they must've eaten sea animals and not the argument as a whole? Given the fact that we are supposed to regard a premise as a fact, how does this answer weaken the argument?

The stimulus says "they must have eaten it IF they made the long journey to and from the islands." This is NOT saying they actually ate sea animals. It's a conditional statement. Contradicting categorical statement is not allowed, but showing that a conditional statement does NOT have to be true is frequently employed to weaken an argument.

So if the stim had said "they ATE the sea animals, but they didn't paint them," saying they didn't need to eat it doesn't do anything against the fact that they did eat it. And saying they DIDN'T eat it is just saying your premise is false. And we're not allowed to do this like you said.

But since the stim says "IF they traveled, they must have eaten it." We're allowed to show that the principle does not work in this case. I agree with you, it IS a little weird that we're not allowed to contradict factual statements but we CAN show that a general statement doesn't have to be true in this case.

I think it's got to do with the subtle difference between the two. Saying "this fact is wrong" does NOT have anything to do with reasoning. It's just saying that your "facts" are not facts. There's nothing wrong with your reasoning, and it would get you to the conclusion if the "facts" were true - it's just that they are not true.

On the other hand, I'm guessing the writers see applying a general law to a situation to get a conclusion as part of reasoning (getting from premise to the conclusion). We're not necessarily saying that "your law is not true." We may be saying that "your law may be true, but it doesn't apply here because of some other consideration or this is an exception." So, I agree with the validity of everything you've said, but your reasoning, the way you went from your truthful premises to your conclusion, is flawed.

I think once we get a better understanding the question stems make a lot of sense. The question stems always ask for problems with arguments - and that's why we can't challenge the truthfulness of the premises. I can imagine if the lsat actually asked: "Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt against the PREMISE of the author's argument?" We might ACTUALLY be able to choose an answer that contradicts the premise - like one that says "No, you're wrong, they DID NOT eat sea creatures."

[ptewarie]

A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the question stem is confusing:
" each of the following WEAKENS the argument AGAINST the theory EXCEPT"

Watch out:
1. We are talking about the Theory mentioned in the paragraph, and NOT the author's argument.
The theory states that the cave paintings are representative of the general diet these people had

2. Weakens AGAINST. This is a classic "double negative". When you have two negatives= they are a positive.
So you can translate this to: Which Strengthens

3. Except= classic exception rule.

Translated the question stem is:

Each of the following Strengthens the theory( paintings ARE representative of the diet) Except.

So it's a classic Strengthen except question( which can also mean find which Answer choice EITHER Weakens or is Out of Scope- does nothing)


So now using that we go the argument:

Predominant theory= What is painted on walls represents diets.
Since no sea animals are drawn, it must mean that ONLY land animals are on the walls and must account that people did not eat Sea Animals OR provide a valid reason why despite not being painted on the walls, people were still eating sea animals ( this is what the theory would have to account for if true)

A. Easy, this strengthens it. If people ate land animals and thati s what is painted on the walls, then great.

B. Ok, if parts did not survive, its possible that this is why the sea animals are not included.( hazy, so keep it for now)

C. Great- they had many animals.... but this does not strengthen the argument nor weaken it, it just tells us what we already know

D. If they had methods to preserve meat, this explains why they wouldnt need to eat sea animals, so strengthen

E. Just like A, this is an easy strengthener

So this is C. It does NOTHING neither strengthen nor weaken.
Its not B because at least B gives the chance for accounting why animals are not painted.

Cheers,
CD

[kgm38]

[size=100][size=100][/size][/size]

I think this will help everyone understand WHY (A) actually weakens the argument:

(A) says that: Once on these islands... the cave painters hunted & ate land animals. This allows the predominant theory to hold up, because once the cave painters got to their cave to paint, what they were CURRENTLY eating was land animals; NOT sea creatures. This weakens the 2nd argument by suggesting that the cave painters COULD have ate sea creatures but not painted them because they were NOT CURRENTLY in the caves while at Sea. Once they got to land, it's entirely possible they switched their diets back to land animals.

[Jahma002]

It is right that premise holds unless you attack it's assumptions.
If premise says Y is Green, then it is a fact.

D weakens the argument against theory because of stimulus wording. The author says unambiguous description of diet, and states as premise that habitants "had" to eat sea creatures if they made long journeys. Granted, they made long journeys and "did" eat sea animals, but they didn't have to "exclusively" eat sea animals, allowing the pictures to be a mixture of land and sea animals.
However, D would be a minor weaking force as it does not tells what kind of "meats" they are proficient in preserving, but at least it loosens the grip of one of its premise that we "had" to eat fish only while at sea.

All the best,
Ahmad

[LauraS737]

I understand why C is the answer, but I'm not quite sure how to rule out B. If part of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries, then maybe some of the lost parts did depict sea animals, which would strengthen the author's argument...
Can someone pleaseeeee explain?

[JosephV]

I understand why C is the answer, but I'm not quite sure how to rule out B. If part of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries, then maybe some of the lost parts did depict sea animals, which would strengthen the author's argument...
Can someone pleaseeeee explain?

Predominant theory: Paintings describe painters' current diets.

Attempted refutation: No, they don't. The reason is that the painters must have eaten sea creatures and there are no sea creatures depicted in any of the paintings. (A point that I think is subtle but important here is that the "contrarians" assume that those painters ate sea creatures.)

(B) says: Wait a minute. Over the centuries some paintings have disappeared. Perhaps, there were sea creatures depicted in some of those lost paintings, in which case, even according to your understanding of those people's lives (namely that they must have eaten sea creatures and painted them), the painters were representing their current diets, which in this case would also include sea creatures. Therefore, (B) weakens the argument against the predominant theory.

[obobob]

I understand why C is the answer, but I'm not quite sure how to rule out B. If part of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries, then maybe some of the lost parts did depict sea animals, which would strengthen the author's argument...
Can someone pleaseeeee explain?

Predominant theory: Paintings describe painters' current diets.

Attempted refutation: No, they don't. The reason is that the painters must have eaten sea creatures and there are no sea creatures depicted in any of the paintings. (A point that I think is subtle but important here is that the "contrarians" assume that those painters ate sea creatures.)

(B) says: Wait a minute. Over the centuries some paintings have disappeared. Perhaps, there were sea creatures depicted in some of those lost paintings, in which case, even according to your understanding of those people's lives (namely that they must have eaten sea creatures and painted them), the painters were representing their current diets, which in this case would also include sea creatures. Therefore, (B) weakens the argument against the predominant theory.

I feel like I am even more confused after reading the explanation ...
So, this is what I understand so far:

[list=]The predominant theory: [The northern cave paintings] ... were largely a description of the current diets of the painters."
(note the word "largely")[/list]
[list=]The author's argument: The predominant theory cannot be right, because the cave omits sea animals, which the painters must have eaten for their mandatory long sea travels.[/list]
[list=]Question stem: What doesn't weaken the predominant theory?[/list]
[list=](B) says: "Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.[/list]

So, speaking about the possibility that parts of the cave painting disappeared for some reason, doesn't (B) actually don't do anything to the author's opinion? (Thus, this answer choice does not weaken the theory?)

After all, we don't know if there were sea animals on the cave rock paintings or not, but because we don't know the such fact, we have no ways to use this fact to go against or to support the author's opinion. In fact, I think (B) actually supports the author's opinion: Even if there were sea animals were included when the paintings were first done but got disappeared or deleted for some unintentional reason or whatever, then doesn't the fact that the painting, as it is from what we can see from our eyes today, doesn't show sea animals indicate that the cave paintings are not a good description of the current diets of the painters?

Also, even if the painters did not include sea animals (maybe, they intentionally omitted or didn't think that the cave paintings are for accurately representing their diets or for whatever reason), doesn't the fact that the cave painting does not represent their diet accurately still stand?
I am not sure if I am misinterpreting anything from the stimulus. I am generally really lost after reading the stimulus numerous times. Please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

A couple things off the bat:
1. This question is legendary for being weird
2. "to weaken" can vary tremendously in strength, but in general any time you raise doubt about the prosecution's case, you have weakened it.

If Person 1 says:
the paintings don't reflect the current diets because
1. the painters must've been eating sea animals
2. the paintings don't contain any sea animals

And Person 2 is saying:
The paintings DO reflect the current diets ..

then Person 2 is either gonna argue
1. The painters were NOT eating sea animals, (that's what A, D, and E do)
or
2. The paintings DID contain sea animals (that's what B is doing)

Does B convince us that the paintings DID have sea animals? Heavens, no. But does B raise some doubt about the author's contention that the paintings DIDN'T have sea animals? Yes.

It sounds like you also might be getting confused by thinking that our author was ever claiming / believing that the painters DIDN'T eat land animals.

It's unclear from the author's words whether she believes that the painters ate land animals also. She's only saying, "Since I believe they ate sea animals, at least in part, but there are NO paintings of sea animals, then this can't be a description of their current diet".