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 1999 LSAT
Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is l...
on October 1 at 02:27AM
Need explanation for Answer B. Thx a lot.
on October 1 at 08:36AM
Let's look at (B).
(B) says, "Some people in Beethovenâ€™s time did not ingest mercury."
We're looking for a necessary assumption in this argument. We can use
the negation test to find the right answer. The right answer, when
negated, will make the argument fall apart because it is *required*
for the argument.
(B)'s negation is "no one in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury."
This means the same thing as saying that everyone in Beethoven's time
The argument is assuming that finding mercury in Beethoven's hair
would mean something significant. However, if everyone in Beethoven's
time had mercury (and presumably then had mercury in their hair), then
it wouldn't matter if we found mercury in Beethoven's hair because it
was in everyone's hair. Thus, mercury in his hair wouldn't tell us
anything about whether he had a venereal disease since it wouldn't be
a distinguishing factor. The negation of (B) wrecks the argument, so
we know that (B) is a necessary premise. Thus, it's the correct
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.