Q23 - It is clear that humans

[deburma]

Hi,

The answer key says the correct answer is (E). Unfortunately, I eliminated (E) in the first run through the answer choices. I am looking for the third time, and still can't figure out why, and at this point, I am just mad confused that I don't even know what I am thinking.

Would you kindly offer some professional help here? Thanks.

[dan]

Thanks for your post.

STEP 1: Clearly define the unexpected result

"Explain a result" questions usually present some unexpected or nonintuitive result. In this case, humans used lamps through the entire Upper Paleolithic (UP) period, but the distribution of known lamps is skewed towards the late UP, when the Magdalenian (M) culture was dominant.

So, here's what we're asked to explain:

Given the fact that lamps were used throughout the entire period, why is it that we have found more lamps from the late part of the period?

STEP 2: Identify the type of answer we're looking for

It's important that we get the question straight. Each answer contributes to an explanation EXCEPT for one of them. This means we're looking for the one answer that does NOT help explain the phenomenon.

So, which answer choice does NOT help to explain why more lamps were found from the late part of the UP?

STEP 3: Evaluate the choices

This step will be extremely difficult if we've neglected either one or both of the first two steps. Here's an analysis of the choices:

(A) DOES help to explain the result. If artifacts from earlier in the period are harder to identify, then it makes sense that we would not be able to identify as many lamps from earlier in the period. This would explain why we've identified more lamps from later in the UP. Thus, this answer is incorrect, as we're looking for the answer that does NOT help to explain the result.

(B) DOES help to explain the result. If we've identified more archaeological sites from later in the UP (when the M's were dominant), it's likely that we'll find more artifacts from later in the period. Imagine that we've identified 5 sites from the early UP, and 10 from the late UP. If we find one lamp at each site, we'll find 5 early lamps and 10 later ones. This would explain why we've identified more lamps from later in the UP. Thus, this answer is incorrect, as we're looking for the answer that does NOT help to explain the result.

(C) DOES help to explain the result. If the M's could make lamps more efficiently, then it's likely that they made more lamps than cultures from the early UP. This would explain why we've identified more lamps from later in the UP -- in fact there were more lamps! Thus, this answer is incorrect, as we're looking for the answer that does NOT help to explain the result.

(D) DOES help to explain the result. If fire pits were more common in the early UP, then early cultures were probably using fire pits for light instead of lamps. This would explain why we've identified more lamps from later in the UP. Thus, this answer is incorrect, as we're looking for the answer that does NOT help to explain the result.

(E) DOES NOT help to explain the result, and is therefore the correct answer. Even if the M's produced more kinds of lamps, this doesn't necessarily mean they produced more lamps overall. Imagine I like to bake cookies. Sometimes I bake chocolate chip, sometimes oatmeal, sometimes sugar cookies, holiday cookies... the list goes on and on. I bake lots of different kinds of cookies, but this doesn't mean I bake more cookies than Nestle Tollhouse, who bakes only chocolate chip cookies. Just b/c the M's made a bunch of different kinds of lamps doesn't mean they made any more lamps than previous cultures. Thus, this doesn't help to explain why we've found more lamps from the later part of the UP.

Hope that helps!

dan

[lisahollchang]

This explanation is really helpful. Thank you!

[theaether]

I had a really rough time going between "D" and "E." The reason was that I didn't think the LSAT would have me make some factual inference about the usage of a so-called "fire pit." I mean, I have no idea what a fire pit is but I inferred that it could help with cooking and lighting, so I did come to the conclusion that more of those COULD mean less lamps being produced. The key problem with this thought was it was only "COULD" and not "MUST."

For example, a country that uses a lot of bicycles for transportation doesn't necessarily have less automobiles than another country. Those earlier periods that used a lot of fire pits could just as well have a ton of lamps lying around, so I felt that fire pits doesn't explain why the distribution is skewed.

And then I thought about "E" and how more kinds of lamps "COULD" mean that during that period, lamps were now very common, widely used, and accepted. Just like how now there are so many varieties of cars vs. when cars first came out in only one model.

I guess I over thought this question, but I still don't see how the LSAT can make me rely on "outside knowledge" and inferring that fire pits = alternative source of lighting = no need for lamps = skewed distribution.

any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

[giladedelman]

I definitely feel where you're coming from on this one. The way I think of it is, the four wrong answers just have to contribute to an explanation of the unexpected result; they don't have to completely account for it. So if an answer contributes to understanding why we have more lamps from the Magdalenian period, we can eliminate it.

(D) is not rock solid, because there's no rule that says you can't have both a fire pit and a lamp, but it could contribute to explaining the result. If fire pits became much less common later in the period, then it's not a big jump to think that humans would need to rely on an alternative light source.

You're right: it's not a perfect explanation, but we don't have to stretch very far to see how it contributes.

(E), on the other hand, is clearly the correct answer because it absolutely doesn't contribute to the explanation. As Dan explained above, there's zero connection between making more types of something and making more of something overall. The jump from one to the other is huge -- we basically have to add a completely new assumption, one that says, the more varieties of something you make, the more of that thing you produce overall. That's a much bigger leap than our connection between fire pits and lamps.

Does that satisfy you at all, or do you still have objections? I think this is a pretty interesting issue.

[theaether]

Looking back on this question now, I can see that I was caught in the quagmire of 4 answer choices being 100% wrong.

I still don't think fire pits is 100% wrong, because it does somewhat require an outside inference (what is a fire pit? and what does it have to do with lighting?) but the credited response is CLEARLY stronger. Much more hoops to leap through than simply fire pits being an appropriate substitute.

[shingctse]

I also had difficulties with this one. I had trouble eliminating answer choice C.)

Just because they were more efficient at making lamps doesn't necessarily mean they made more, right? It seems we have to assume they wanted to make as many lamps as possible, when it could be true that they just made them faster.

:-\ Could someone clear this up, please?

[timmydoeslsat]

If it were true that the Magdalenian culture had more efficient lamp-making techniques, that would help us explain why there are more lamps attributed to that culture than the previous ones.

The problem with E is that is we want to explain why more overall lamps were found to be with the Magdalenian culture than others. Being told that the Magdalenian culture produced more kinds is not going to help us with the concept of overall number.

[jabushawish4]

more efficient allows us to make the assumption that more may have been made Whereas more kinds of lamps doesn't allow us to make the assumption that more lamps were made. Got it

[xinglipku]

For answer choice (D), I don't quite understand that could we understand "more fire pits" as the result of "less distribution of lamps"? If so it seems it can't *explain* why less lamps were distributed in the early period?

[timmydoeslsat]

It is saying that fires were much more common early in the period than late. That would help account for the fact that many more lamps are found in the late period than the early period.

It suggests that those in the early period used these fires much more than they would use lamps, although we do know for a fact that lamps were used throughout the period, both early and late. This answer choice gives us a possible reason why an inequity of lamps between the two periods has been perceived as of this point.

[contropositive]

This seems like one of those arguments where you end up eliminating all the asnwers first time around, but I think its easy to just know different kind doesn't imply amount. and even if they produced more kinds of lamps doesn't mean they used it..

[aiwanic]

After reading all these responses, I am still grappling with the distinctions between answers C and E.

Both COULD be a part of a valid explanation for the increase in lamps in the later UP period. However, both could be considered illogical assumptions. Moreover, these leaps in reasoning strike me as remarkably parallel.

C - Yes, more efficient lamp making techniques could lead to more lamp production in that this would make it easier to produce more lamps if necessary.

Simply because the lamp making process is more efficient, this does not mean that humans would necessarily produce more lamps. Perhaps, they already produced a sufficient amount of lamps and developed more efficient techniques in order to spend less time producing the same amount of lamps rather than to produce more lamps.

E - Yes, creating more kinds of lamps could mean that they produced more lamps because they found new ways to utilize the new diversity of lamps in new environments while continuing to use the same number of lamps in the traditional manner.

Simply because there is a larger variety of lamps, that does not mean that they created more lamps. Perhaps, some of the traditional lamps were simply replaced by a new kind.


I would greatly appreciate if someone can further clarify why the assumption necessary for C is preferable to the assumption necessary for E. Thanks!

[Jahma002]

It was easier to eliminate C than D.
C gives us the reason for preference.

D)Fire pits give an alternative,but why the switch, are they exclusive? Are they preferable?
So for D you need an assumption to count it out.

E) also requires assumption to count it out, making it two unaccounted possible answers.
E tells us that Magdalenians were more prone with lamps. More variety also means more options for consumption.

Rather answer D gives premise in number form and E is giving us an answer in variety. Which is not decisive but a palpable difference.

I believe I am correct on this one.
-Ahmad

[stacksdoe]

Mike, or any other LSAT geeks/masters, I your help is much needed on this question---- I have NEVER encountered (well maybe I have, most likely i have, encountered) a question that gave such a headache. I'm almost to the point of mastery, but I'm still lagging a bit. So is anyone out there so I can post my question?

Much thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey-o.

Fyi, the forum moderators (aka "geeks") will respond to students with blue/green names, but usually not to yellow students unless it's a brand new question.

However, fellow students often respond to yellow questions and sometimes moderators can't resist and get involved.

Most importantly, what was your question? Did you ask one? After you read Dan's explanation, what still left you feeling unsettled?

[stacksdoe]

Hi Patrick,

First and foremost, thank you for your quick response!

Yes, after I read Dan’s explanation – including all others – I was still feeling “unsettled” (a very fitting adjective). Here is why—for sake of time and redundancy I’ll jump straight to the bone of the matter. This is a sufficient question, (requiring inductive reasoning); the incorrect answer choice will in some way or another “help” resolve the skewed allocation of lamps, whereas the incorrect answer will not. In another words, the correct answer choice will other strengthen the problem, commit an error, or be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My question --which has not been answered -- is there any other reasoning behind why (E) is the correct answer choice? It is prevalent, or rather, a pattern that answer choices will have more than a single reason why they are either incorrect or correct; so when I get stuck or feel unsettled, I am to pinpoint this element (obviously some answers are plainly or so conspicuously incorrect that they need no scrutiny)
So, besides what has already been exhausted, namely that a greater variety does not mean a greater number total (in fact, it’s just as possible that a greater variety weakens the possibility of a greater number). Could the second error in reasoning with (E) be that it is not specific enough? In the stimulus, there is an explicit deference between the “late Upper Paleolithic period versus the entire Upper Paleolithic period, but with (E) we don’t have that, instead, it encompasses the entire Magdalenian culture vs. earlier cultures.
I hope I made some sense (in fact, I could have kept going but I did not want to lose my audience with my thought process), but if I did not, Ill try and simplify it: My basic problem is that there has to be more than one reason why (E) is the correct answer choice, besides the one that everyone has identified—my instincts tells me so, and I’m pretty confident that my logic does too (I’ve gone over several times); I just cannot seem to simply it into words. It is a fact that the answer choices (A-D) we have one assumption (that deals with probability), but here with (E), we have more than one assumption, but only one has been discussed.
Second, do you know of any question types that exposes this reasoning error – equating variety with a less or a more total number of items, or something very similar.

Thank you in advance

[stacksdoe]

Hello

[ohthatpatrick]

I can't offhand think of a copycat problem that tests the same distinction, though it seems like there is one.

I don't know why you're saying things like "there MUST be a 2nd reason" it's wrong. Sure, there COULD be a 2nd reason it's wrong, but why does there have to be?

It sounds like you're just not buying the 1st reason people are saying.

Just compare (C) to (E) and you'll see the secondary issue you're raising is moot.

If there were a specificity problem with comparing Magdalenian culture vs. earlier cultures, it would afflict (C) and (E) in exactly the same way because they use the same wording.

Literally, the last 8 words of (C) and (E) are identical.

So just focus on the beginnings of those choices:

Which fact better explains why there are more known lamps from the Magdalenian period than from an earlier period?

- M had more efficient lamp-making techniques
or
- M made more kinds of lamps

Neither one proves greater quantity, but "higher efficiency" is connected by common sense to "greater output".

"More types" is not connected as strongly by common sense to "greater output".

Hope this helps.

[stacksdoe]

Hi Patrick,

Your feedback does help! So first and foremost Thank you!
I did look C and E, and yes, your absolutely right (I did not catch that). This all just goes to show why detail, detail, detail, is key. No, I'm completely buying the reason that has been stated repeatedly - that variety does not equal quantity; and I understand and agree with that in itself is sufficient for E to be incorrect, I was just trying to see if there could be any other reason why E is incorrect, like in so many other cases.
I guess, one idea I need to keep in mind, is that when the logic is faulty, it is faulty and nothing else, and vice verse when it is solid/clear logic, then it is. What I mean is that, A-D all give possible explanation, ( a la inductive reasoning) for the skewed data., whereas, E simply does not give us a possibly reason, instead, it gives us faulty reasoning, right?
Personally, I now think this is one of those cases, where the correct answer choice is just too obvious, that I just somehow gloss over it (gladly this is becoming less and less). Because when I look back, over the answer choices, it just so clear that E is the correct answer choice.

Thank you!