LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2013 LSAT
A small collection of copper-alloy kitchen implements was found in an abandoned Roman-era well. Beneath them was a ca...
on November 6, 2018
What is the rational for this ?
on November 7, 2018
Iâ€™m happy to help. As always, letâ€™s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that strengthens the argument. Thus, we need to understand the argument (and to identify any logical gaps or weaknesses.)
This argument starts with facts: kitchen implements were found in a well. Beneath them were coins, dated to 375 AD.
Then there is a conclusion: Therefore, the implements were dropped into the well no earlier than 375 AD.
What should you notice? The premises contain information about the positional relationship of the implements and the coins: the implements are above the coins. And we have information about the age of the coins: 375 AD. Notice, therefore, that there is an assumption, that because the implements are ABOVE the coins, they must be YOUNGER than the coins.
Answer B helps strengthen that argument, because it eliminates the possibility that the implements were at one point below the coins, and then the coins slipped below the implements. And that is why that answer is correct!
I hope that helps. Please let us know if you have further questions.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.