Q6 - Standard archaeological techniques make it

[Shiggins]

I struggled in interpreting this question. The first statement states that:

"Standard archeological techniques make it possible to determine age" but this requires the object being carbon free.

It states "Limestone contains carbon"

And concludes:
"Standard archaeological techniques make it impossible to determine age with paintings of limestone.

So for this conclusion to follow I believe there is an assumption that you can not make an object with limestone completely free of carbon or you can not completely wipe off the limestone bc you will have carbon, which the absence of is required to determine age.

Answer choice B says that there is a way to remove all limestone thus making it free of carbon.

If someone could clarify this, correct it, or add to it. much appreciated.

Also if someone could help clarify the phrase "it is impossible to collect samples ... without removing limestone." Its function and possibly the best way to diagram it bc I belive it says:

collecting samples requires removing limestone.

[shirando21]

Premises:

Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter-->the object is free of minerals containing carbon.

Prehistoric paintings on limestone has pigments composed of vegetable matter

To collect sample of this prehistoric paint--> removing limestone

Conclusion:

It is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archaeological techniques.


B) provides a solution to remove limestone, which makes it possible to collect sample prehistoric paint free of minerals containing carbon. Therefore, weakens the argument.

[WaltGrace1983]

I had a bit of trouble weeding through this stimulus and the answer choices. I'll do a full write-up.

(Limestone → Carbon → ~Able to Determine Age)
+
Cannot collect paint samples without taking some limestone (carbon) off with the paint sample
→
Using standard archaeological techniques, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone

One big thing to understand for this question is that we cannot bring in any other outside techniques. We are solely focusing on one particular technique and this particular technique makes it impossible to determine the age of something with limestone (carbon) on it. The main assumption then is that we cannot get the limestone off the painting.

(A) This might be true. However, we are looking at a specific set of techniques already discussed in the stimulus.

(B) Okay! If ~limestone then this would mean ~carbon. If ~carbon then it makes it more likely that we CAN determine the age of the paintings!

(C) We don't need to determine the age of the limestone. We need to determine the age of the paintings.

(D) This doesn't really matter. We are talking solely about paintings done with vegetable matter. If anything, this would strengthen the argument because it confines the scope of prehistoric paintings. Remember, the stimulus is saying that we can determine the age of paintings done with vegetable matter using a specific technique. If we are confined in our techniques we use (as the conclusion demands of us) AND we are confined in the type of paintings (to only those done with vegetable matter) then we have all the more reason to believe that we cannot determine the age of prehistoric paintings.

(E) We don't care how much carbon; we care if carbon exists, period.

[jones.mchandler]

Maybe I'm missing some glaring issue with this.

"...it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone..."

B) laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.

Does the answer choice not contradict the premise ?

[WaltGrace1983]

Maybe I'm missing some glaring issue with this.

"...it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone..."

B) laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.

Does the answer choice not contradict the premise ?

It actually doesn't. The premise is saying that, when you collect the samples, the limestone comes off with it. Think about that - it makes perfect sense! How could we just take paint off while keeping the paintings intact?! That would be like taking the Sistine Chapel's mural off of the wall and then making it into a wallpaper. The paint is almost apart of the ceiling and the ceiling is apart of the paint.

(B) is saying that, once you take off that painting - limestone with it and all - you can actually take off the limestone. In other words, BEFORE the lab procedure, the limestone and painting was one in the same. AFTER the lab procedure, the limestone and painting was seperated.

Make sense?

[pewals13]

This is an interesting argument.

I think the key here is to interpret the below statement correctly:

"it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint"

Anytime you see "without" you can generally just replace it with "requires"

So you know that collecting the samples requires removing carbon with it which would result in standard archeological techniques being unable to date it.

Conclusion:

"Therefore, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archeological techniques"

When you face a tough question, stay focused on the precise wording of the conclusion

(A) So what? Can any of these date something when carbon is present? This is a blah answer.

(B) If this is true and lab procedures can remove all limestone leaving the vegetable paint carbon free, the conclusion no longer follows

(C) Being able to determine the age of the limestone does not mean you can determine the age of the prehistoric paintings

(D) Irrelevant, you have no idea how this would impact the argument, don't make unwarranted assumptions

(E) This would strengthen the argument by establishing the consistent presence of carbon.

[mkd000]

Does anyone have any ideas how this argument's flaw may be described in a correct answer choice for a flaw question? (In LSAT language, of course)

I'm a bit stuck with this one. The best I can think of is something like: "The author assumes that the presence of a property that ensures that a desired outcome is not possible without considering that the reverse be true".

I know, that isn't the best. Anyone with a better idea? I find doing this for all Assumption questions helps me think faster, as I struggle with Assumption questions in general.

Thanks!

[tchen7292]

Quick note on this question that I didn't really see addressed here.

The conclusion is:
"Therefore not possible to determine age...of paintings...using standard archaeological techniques"

B) This is the right answer and you can get it from POE, but does it truly weaken? If a procedure exists to remove the bad limestone it might weaken, but we don't know if this is a standard archaeological technique(or procedure, in this case). If this is a standard archaeological technique, it would weaken. If it's a forensic chemistry technique, it would not weaken.

Does this make sense? This ambiguity means that I can't 100% say this is the answer. Am I mis-interpreting this?

[Jahma002]

@tchen,

I see that you are adding multiple assumptions. When you are provided with an answer which uses general terms then it applies generally.

If I tell you I will give you a hammer then you can't discount the answer I gave you by assuming I meant "only the handle" or the head of the hammer. If I said hammer then I meant hammer as a whole.

As far as my reviews and studies went I haven't seen a question where LSAT writers tried to "trick" you with "technicality". It's at par with legal scholars and interpretation differences isn't part of the test.

Hope this helps,
Ahmad

[hayleychen12]

Quick note on this question that I didn't really see addressed here.

The conclusion is:
"Therefore not possible to determine age...of paintings...using standard archaeological techniques"

B) This is the right answer and you can get it from POE, but does it truly weaken? If a procedure exists to remove the bad limestone it might weaken, but we don't know if this is a standard archaeological technique(or procedure, in this case). If this is a standard archaeological technique, it would weaken. If it's a forensic chemistry technique, it would not weaken.

Does this make sense? This ambiguity means that I can't 100% say this is the answer. Am I mis-interpreting this?

I have exactly the same question here!!!!

Any help will be so appreciated!!

[ohthatpatrick]

There are two things I'd say in response:

1. Make sure you're not expecting a PERFECT answer on Strengthen/Weaken. Even if (B) just opens up a POSSIBILITY that there is a standard technique that would make it possible to determine the age of the paintings, then we have weakened the author's CERTAIN conclusion.

2. The first sentence is saying, "if you hand me some vegetable matter that's free of carbon, I can use standard techniques to determine its age."

The author is saying "we won't be able to determine the age of these paintings (of this vegetable matter) using standard techniques."

The fact that (B) says we can take away the limestone and then we'll have an "object free of minerals containing carbon".

The object will be the "paintings", the vegetable matter. We will be using the standard techniques to determine the age of the paintings.

The conclusion isn't saying "it's impossible to use standard techniques on the collected samples of paintings removed from limestone". The 'paintings' themselves were nothing but vegetable matter, so removing the carbon doesn't need to be done by the standard techniques in order for us to say that "standard techniques determined the age of the paintings".

ANALOGY:
Skillets make it possible to make a delicious omelette, but only if the eggs being cooked are free of shells. However, it's impossible to buy eggs from the store that are free of shells. Thus, it's impossible to make a delicious omelette from store-bought eggs, using a skillet.