Q13 - Numismatist: In medieval Spain, most

[skapur777]

Is (A) unsupported? If they all have a gold content of 92 percent, why wouldn't they have the same and proportion of gold?

[jasonxu89]

I think the passage never says the coins are of the same weight, so A is not supported.

Is (A) unsupported? If they all have a gold content of 92 percent, why wouldn't they have the same and proportion of gold?

[noah]

I agree with jasonxu89.

In case others are confused about this question:

This is an inference question, so our job is to understand the stimulus and see which of the answers is most provable.

(A) is unsupported because gold content is different than weight. A coin could be 100% gold but lighter than one that is 0% gold and 100% iron!

(B) is provable. The stimulus tells us that the gold from the Senegalese mine was the purest known, and that there were coins made from gold mined from somewhere else.

(C) is out of scope. The stimulus doesn't discuss monetary value.

(D) is unsupported. We know there were some coins minted that were 92% and some that were more pure than that, but we don't learn that there were some minted that were less pure.

(E) is unsupported. We do learn that Senegalese gold didn't have to be refined, but there might have been some other gold that could be used as is even though it must have been slightly less pure.

[jasonxu89]

Hi Noah, thanks a lot for your explanations in LR section. They really help! Can you share some general strategies to improve logical reasoning? I have done about 30 practices tests and usually got 4 wrong in each section. Since I am aiming at 170, I want to keep each LR section under 2 wrong. Still have about 1 month and 30 tests to go!

I agree with jasonxu89.

In case others are confused about this question:

This is an inference question, so our job is to understand the stimulus and see which of the answers is most provable.

(A) is unsupported because gold content is different than weight. A coin could be 100% gold but lighter than one that is 0% gold and 100% iron!

(B) is provable. The stimulus tells us that the gold from the Senegalese mine was the purest known, and that there were coins made from gold mined from somewhere else.

(C) is out of scope. The stimulus doesn't discuss monetary value.

(D) is unsupported. We know there were some coins minted that were 92% and some that were more pure than that, but we don't learn that there were some minted that were less pure.

(E) is unsupported. We do learn that Senegalese gold didn't have to be refined, but there might have been some other gold that could be used as is even though it must have been slightly less pure.

[noah]

Can you share some general strategies to improve logical reasoning?

That's a pretty big question!

I'd start with this blog post about how to review LSAT questions

And, make sure you're not just practicing with tests, practice strategies (I suggest the ones we write about in our books! )

Nice work though - looks like you're nearing your goal!

[mharr]

I reviewed this problem a couple of times and still arrived at the wrong answer. The first time I thought the answer was A. I reviewed this question for the first time months ago so I do not remember why I thought A was the correct answer. I reviewed this question today and narrowed down the correct answer to B or C. I chose C unfortunately.

I chose C based on what the first sentence in the stimulus said, that most gold coins in medieval Spain came from Senegal which had 92% gold content. From there I inferred that there were other gold coins that came from a different region where the gold content was less. Therefore, there could be a gold coin from Senegal (with 92%gold content) and a coin from a different region (with 80% gold content) worth the same amount.

My understanding of the stimulus is this: most gold coins in medieval Spain came from Senegal which had 92% gold content. The gold coins from Senegal were never refined. Some gold coins in medieval Spain came from other regions. Those coins may or may not have been refined.

Is my understanding of the stimulus correct? I am having a difficult time understanding why B is the correct answer.

**********

I see what the issue is now. I disregarded the last sentence in the stimulus because it seemed very broad and unrelated to the previous sentences which seemed to be narrowly focused on gold from Senegal. The last sentence helps me understand why B is the correct answer.

[rpcuhk]

I chose C based on what the first sentence in the stimulus said, that most gold coins in medieval Spain came from Senegal which had 92% gold content. From there I inferred that there were other gold coins that came from a different region where the gold content was less. Therefore, there could be a gold coin from Senegal (with 92%gold content) and a coin from a different region (with 80% gold content) worth the same amount.

I chose C too...now I see where C went wrong. The argument didn't mention anything about how the monetary value of the coins were decided. We can't assume that the monetary value did not reflect the percentage of gold they contained.

[a8l367]

In C
"coins minted from this source of gold can be recognized because they have that gold content"
can we assume that it means ONLY because they have...?
If we can't assume that, pls explain why

I mean if the argument provided no other reasons, should we assume in that particular example that there is only one reason?

[SJK493]

Can anyone provide clarification on how the inference was made in answer (B)? There is nothing said about gold with a content of less than 92 percent.

[AnnaF185]

We know that the gold from Senegal is the purest know. How? The stimulus tells us this. A gold content of 92% is the purest known. This gold content is so high, in fact, that they don't bother refining it when they want to make it into a coin.

But we do know that we end up with some coins that have a higher gold content than 92% (this is said in the last sentence). How could this be? Well, it clearly comes from refining some kind of gold to get a gold content that high. And we know that the uber-pure 92% is not refined. So it must be the case that some gold with a gold content percentage of less than 92% is refined in order to make coins with a gold content of over 92%. We know they do not refine gold with a higher gold content than 92% since such gold does not exist (as far as we know since 92% is the purest known).