December 2017 LSAT Section 1 Question 21

Archaeologist: Our team discovered 5,000-year-old copper tools near a Canadian river, in a spot that offered easy acc...

AndrewArabie on November 15, 2022

I don't see how the correct answer is necessary

The conclusion is just that Canadian aboriginals used canoes made of the wood. If you negate the correct answer and those tools weren't present 5000 years ago, that doesn't collapse the argument because they could've easily used other tools. Can someone explain why the correct answer is necessary and a key takeaway from this question I can apply to others?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on November 15, 2022

You're right that they could have used other tools, but if they did use other tools, then the argument makes no sense. Since we are saying that the discovery of these tools proves that they used the wood in their canoes, if we make the tools irrelevant then the conclusion is no longer supported. We are not trying to disprove the conclusion exactly, but to undermine the argument that supports the conclusion. The conclusion could still be true, but the argument cited for it simply does not prove it.