akchung831
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 1
Joined: November 08th, 2010
 
 
 

Q2 - From the tenth century until

by akchung831 Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:11 am

Just a quick question:

Is the evidence inconsistent because there's new information talking about Inuit settlers from North America? Or, in lack of better ways to formulate my question: what is the evidence that is "inconsistent?


Thanks!
 
giladedelman
Thanks Received: 833
LSAT Geek
 
Posts: 619
Joined: April 04th, 2010
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - From the tenth century until

by giladedelman Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:43 pm

Ah, thanks for the question.

So, the argument introduces one explanation for the decline of the Norse settlements -- temperatures got too low for human habitation -- and concludes that this explanation cannot be correct because there's evidence that directly contradicts it: Inuit settlers continued to survive.

So, the evidence of the Inuits is inconsistent with the claim that temperatures were too low for human habitation; after all, the Inuits were humans who continued to inhabit the region.

Does that make sense to you?
 
ZarkaS555
Thanks Received: 4
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 20
Joined: May 22nd, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - From the tenth century until

by ZarkaS555 Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:01 pm

Why is Answer Choice D incorrect? Could someone please explain?
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - From the tenth century until

by ohthatpatrick Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:59 pm

The test of whether these answers are right/wrong is simply, "Can we match it up with the stimulus?"

For (D), is there a general rule?

There IS a claim being opposed
CLAIM: the temperature drop between 1000-1500 made Greenland too cold for humans

The author opposes that by citing a counterexample:
Inuits are humans, and THEY thrived in Greenland during that time.

We can't call the fact the author provides us about Inuit settlers a "GENERAL RULE".
 
SimahA894
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: January 26th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - From the tenth century until

by SimahA894 Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:17 am

need more explanation on the question, please! I don't get why Bb is the answer what is inconsistent?
User avatar
 
smiller
Thanks Received: 73
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 205
Joined: February 01st, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q2 - From the tenth century until

by smiller Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:36 am

The argument produces evidence that Inuit settlers lived in Greenland at the same time as the Norse settlers and remained in Greenland long after the Norse settlers disappeared. This is inconsistent with the claim that the Norse settlers disappeared because Greenland became too cold for human habitation. This claim about Greenland becoming too cold is the "claim being opposed." It's opposed by the argument's conclusion ("this explanation cannot be correct").