linzru86
Thanks Received: 3
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 24
Joined: June 08th, 2010
 
 
 

Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by linzru86 Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:47 pm

How does the argument make it seem like titanium was both extremely restricted and not extremely restricted? I don't see it.
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT2
Thanks Received: 311
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 303
Joined: July 14th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by ManhattanPrepLSAT2 Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:41 pm

This is a very uncharacteristic LSAT argument, in that the author uses one piece of evidence to reach two different conclusions.

The evidence is that titanium has been found in two old works -- the Bible by Gutenberg, and another older Bible named B36.

This evidence is used to prove two conclusions:

1: The Bible named B36 was created by Gutenberg

2: Vinland Map, which has titanium, may be from 15th century (paraphrasing a bit)

Let's look at the individual premise-conclusion relationships to see what's wrong here:

1:

titanium has been found in two old works -- the Bible by Gutenberg, and another older Bible named B36.

THEREFORE

The Bible named B36 was created by Gutenberg

In this case, the author is saying that, because B36 shares a particular trait w/Gutenberg's Bible, Gutenberg must have also created B36. Note that in reaching this conclusion the author is assuming that titanium in paint is a really rare characteristic (if it were common, we couldn't use the presence of it to prove B36 to be a Gutenberg).

2:

titanium has been found in two old works -- the Bible by Gutenberg, and another older Bible named B36.

THEREFORE

Vinland Map, which has titanium, may be from 15th century.

How is the evidence meant to connect to the conclusion here? The author is assuming that the titanium found in those two works is indicative of titanium commonly being used in that time (so that it's understandable that it would be on the Vinland map).

Notice that in one case, the author is, in trying to connect evidence to conclusion, assuming that the evidence is an indication of rarity, and, in the other case, commonness. This is essentially what (A) says.

Hope that is helpful. Please feel free to follow up if you have additional questions.
 
willaminic
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 31
Joined: May 26th, 2010
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought that ink was used

by willaminic Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:54 pm

I had trouble doing this one first, but i eliminate all other four choices, and pick A then.

B) who care about printers and artist...out of scope.
c) There is nothing about location mentioned in the argument.
d) Same reason as B
E) there is no comparison between the Map and Bible.

Hope my explanation helps. Sometimes hard questions is easier to do .
 
wguwguwgu
Thanks Received: 5
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 39
Joined: January 17th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought that ink was used

by wguwguwgu Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:02 am

I thought the flaw of this one is kind of similar to that of PT5-S1-Q24 (minor peculiarities of language used by poets)?
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought that ink was used

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:27 pm

wguwguwgu Wrote:I thought the flaw of this one is kind of similar to that of PT5-S1-Q24 (minor peculiarities of language used by poets)?

Great comparison. These two questions are very similar indeed! They both deal with the use of some characteristic for identification purposes. The key to such identification in these questions is to establish whether the characteristic is limited to only one individual or is common to many.

I'm sure the writer of the question in PT12 was aware of the question in PT5, and potentially was the same author!

Nice comparison wguwguwgu!
 
goriano
Thanks Received: 12
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 113
Joined: December 03rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by goriano Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:25 pm

Mike.Kim Wrote:titanium has been found in two old works -- the Bible by Gutenberg, and another older Bible named B36.

THEREFORE

Vinland Map, which has titanium, may be from 15th century.

How is the evidence meant to connect to the conclusion here? The author is assuming that the titanium found in those two works is indicative of titanium commonly being used in that time (so that it's understandable that it would be on the Vinland map).


I'm having trouble with this part of your explanation. I don't see the author concluding that the Vinland Map may be from the 15th century. Instead that author is simply saying that because there was a presence of titanium ink in AT LEAST one other 15th century work and because the Vinland Map did have titanium as well, we can eliminate THAT reason to doubt the map's authenticity. So this actually doesn't require the assumption that titanium was COMMONLY being used, rather, that it was used in at least one other instance. Could you provide some insight? Thanks.
 
sukim764
Thanks Received: 3
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 27
Joined: March 09th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by sukim764 Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:29 pm

goriano Wrote:
Mike.Kim Wrote:titanium has been found in two old works -- the Bible by Gutenberg, and another older Bible named B36.

THEREFORE

Vinland Map, which has titanium, may be from 15th century.

How is the evidence meant to connect to the conclusion here? The author is assuming that the titanium found in those two works is indicative of titanium commonly being used in that time (so that it's understandable that it would be on the Vinland map).


I'm having trouble with this part of your explanation. I don't see the author concluding that the Vinland Map may be from the 15th century. Instead that author is simply saying that because there was a presence of titanium ink in AT LEAST one other 15th century work and because the Vinland Map did have titanium as well, we can eliminate THAT reason to doubt the map's authenticity. So this actually doesn't require the assumption that titanium was COMMONLY being used, rather, that it was used in at least one other instance. Could you provide some insight? Thanks.



I had a similar reaction when I read Kaplan's explanation for this question, specifically the part Goriano mentions in the above post. I can see how the presence of titanium in the Vinland Map can lead to the conclusion that the map may be from 15th century, but how are we to assume that a mere presence of titanium in this single piece of document suggests that titanium was common?
Thank you in advance
 
slimjimsquinn
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 43
Joined: February 11th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by slimjimsquinn Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:17 pm

I had a similar reaction when I read Kaplan's explanation for this question, specifically the part Goriano mentions in the above post. I can see how the presence of titanium in the Vinland Map can lead to the conclusion that the map may be from 15th century, but how are we to assume that a mere presence of titanium in this single piece of document suggests that titanium was common?
Thank you in advance


I think you may have it backwards. It is not from the titanium in the Vinland map that the author draws his conclusion. It is from the the titanium in the B-36 and the Gutenberg bible.

The author's (incorrect) reasoning is this:

Titanium was found in at least two 15th century works (the Gutenburg Bible and the B-36)

--->

Therefore, titanium was commonly used in the 15th century

This is, of course, a leap in logic. You're absolutely right in questioning how the author could go from the presence of titanium in two documents to titanium by generally used people of the 15th century. This is precisely the author's flaw: he or she overgeneralizes from too small a sample.


The author then uses this flawed assumption to support his or her conclusion.

At least two 15th century works contains titanium ink
---->

Titanium ink must have been all the rage, back in those 15th century days.

--->

Vinland map has titanium ink. It must have been from the 15th century, too.


Even if we were to take the author's assumption as true, that titanium ink WAS commonly used, does that definitely prove that the map is from the 15th century? Nope. It could be that titanium ink continued its popularity into the 17th century. Perhaps it was sketched more recently and then passed off as a relic from a previous time. The finding of Titanium in a verified 15th century work certainly makes authenticity a possibility, but doesn't guarantee it.


This question is tricky because it requires multiple steps--seeing how the same premise is used to reach different conclusions and then finding the assumptions for each. Very tough. Hope this helped some!
 
b16
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 8
Joined: February 01st, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by b16 Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:21 pm

Answer A does not presume that the author is assuming that titanium ink is both rare and common. The answer’s language is "extremely restricted."

The author attributes B36 to Gutenberg under the assumption that titanium ink was EXTREMELY RESTRICTED in the 15th century and so if something is printed or written in titanium ink, it must have been made by Gutenberg. The author then brings up the Vinland Map (a famous Norse Map that was not made by Gutenberg) that is also created using titanium ink. The fact that the author believes there is other titanium ink work in the 15th century invalidates the logic that backs his claim that Gutenberg must’ve printed B36 just because it had titanium ink.

Whether or not titanium ink was rare or common is irrelevant. Even if the use of titanium ink were rare, a scenario in which even two people use titanium ink would invalidate the author’s ability to attribute B36 to Gutenberg (maybe it was the other titanium ink guy). The flaw in the argument is if there is evidence that people other than Gutenberg used titanium ink, and the author supplies this by mentioning the Vinland Map.
 
tzyc
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 323
Joined: May 27th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by tzyc Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:01 pm

I'm not sure about "was, was not" part in answer (A)...what does it mean?? Does it imply rarity...? :|
 
austindyoung
Thanks Received: 22
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 75
Joined: July 05th, 2012
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by austindyoung Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:42 pm

tz_strawberry Wrote:I'm not sure about "was, was not" part in answer (A)...what does it mean?? Does it imply rarity...? :|


Mike Kim's first response above I think clearly describes your question.

I think, POE for this Q makes it much easier to get to (A)

But, to your question:

The author states that until recently it was believed that titanium was NOT used in the ink before the 1500s (16th century)

But- a Gutenburg Bible was found with titanium in its ink. It's from the 1400s. Also, another Bible, B36, was found with titanium in its ink. It is also from the 15th century. It was not found in ANY of the other NUMEROUS 15th century books also tested.

The author concludes that this strongly supports the hypothesis that Gutenburg printed B36.

He says it also supports this: that the Vinland Map, which is doubted to be from the 1400s really is. Why? Because it too has titanium in its ink.

Problems:

The author connects the Gutenberg Bible's author (Gutenberg) to the B36's author (Unknown, but postulated to be Gutenberg). Why? Because they both contain titanium.

Why is that possibly a legitimate connection? Because titanium is so rare (look at the capitalized words above) that if two documents both use it, then their origins are probably similar.

For full understanding: let's say there are two letters written in ink today. Let's say both of the inks in the letters contain the main ingredient Q. Now someone says- because they both have Q- they must have the same author!

But, if in 2013, all ink is made with Q, that's a bad argument. If its 1400 and titanium is rare, we are on to something.

The author continues:

The finding of titanium in ink is also important for another reason. There is a Vinland Map. It contains titanium as well. Therefore it is really from the 1400s.

This would only make sense if Titanium was the same in frequency as Q was above. But, if titanium is rare before the 16th century, and (we can infer this next statement from the first sentence in the stim) is known to be used after- the presence of titanium in the Vinland map gives us enough evidence to conclude that it was actually formed after the 16th century.

Why? Well, because that's when more ink with titanium documents are located.

The author is assuming that the 1400s in the first instance ARE NOT populated with titanium ink. This is why he makes the Bible connection (that sounds like a scary dating show).

He then states that the Vinland Map is from the 1400s because of the presence of titanium ink. Linking it to the 1400s because of the presence of TWO other docs with titanium ink- which makes no sense unless that time period IS populated with titanium ink. And the time period we do know this to be true for is after the 1500s

So, when he analyzes the evidence, he interprets it in two different ways ("was" and "was not") to arrive at two conclusions.

HTH
 
mirroredshades
Thanks Received: 10
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 5
Joined: June 06th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by mirroredshades Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:10 pm

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here because I found this question to be extremely frustrating for some odd reason. Having worked through it, it makes more sense. In fact, reading through this thread actually made me even more confused. And, frankly, I disagree with some of the interpretations of the argument. That ink with titanium was "common" or that there was "more ink" with titanium after the 16th century is not the issue. I'll try to explain it the best that I can.

The introductory sentence of the stimulus seems to be causing some confusion here. It suggests that the issue will be whether or not something was used or was common in a certain era when that is not the issue. It's sort of like whether or not we can place a certain artifact in a certain place or time. But that's not the actual point of the argument. The actual argument is that the author uses the evidence that titanium ink did exist pre-16th century to reach a conclusion (or two). In fact, Mike.Kim's explanation confused me at first because this is not about whether it was used "commonly" or even at all. Let me explain further:

The first sentence says: "Until recently it was thought that ink used before the sixteenth century did not contain titanium." However, through analysis titanium has now been detected in the ink used by Gutenberg in his famous bible. Titanium was detected in only one other book analyzed: this other bible (B-36). That titanium-containing ink was used pre-16th century is a non-issue for the author. In fact, by saying that this type of ink was found in the Gutenberg bible and the B-36, which we know were from the 15th century, it becomes a non-issue.

No, instead his goal is to use the evidence from this analysis to reach two conclusions (I say two because of the words "but also"): (1) that there is now support to the idea that Gutenberg authored the B-36, too; and (2) that when it comes to the ink issue, the Vinland Map can no longer be doubted on its authenticity. Meaning that: you all said that the Vinland Map's authenticity was doubtful on account of its titanium-laced ink, but now that evidence suggests that such ink was used pre-16th century, it is no longer a cause for doubt (perhaps it was created after, but you ought no longer use the ink issue as evidence for that).

It seems airtight. But several issues should jump out at you. Namely that the two conclusions seem to contradict each other. The issue here is not whether the author is wrong in suggesting that Gutenberg wrote the other Bible, or that we should no longer dispute the authenticity of the map (in regards to the ink issue). Now, granted, the author does not take any extreme positions or strongly endorse his conclusions (he merely says there is evidence now to support certain hypotheses)... But the issue is that when you take both conclusions together, it seems off. And the argument is vulnerable on that ground.

How does it lend support that Gutenberg was responsible for the other Bible if there is clearly this Vinland Map which suggests that anyone else could have been? Did Gutenberg create that, too? The author's support for Gutenberg's authorship rests on the fact that his Bible and the B-36 were the only books analyzed to contain titanium-laced ink. Isn't it entirely possible that there were things not analyzed that had the same type of ink? And, wait a minute, what about the Vinland Map? Maybe the guy who made the Vinland Map made the B-36 bible. Maybe the Vinland Map and B-36 were created by two different people. Maybe aliens did it. In fact, in the very same sentence he says that there's support for Gutenberg's authorship for the B-36, but that there is also this other map, which suggests that it could have been written by anybody. Unless evidence was produced which clearly suggests Gutenberg wrote the B-36, one conclusion undermines the other.

(A) is just a very unorthodox way of saying this. (A) is not saying that titanium-containing ink was common (or not). (A) is suggesting that the author uses the evidence ("results of the analysis are interpreted") to suggest two things which are incompatible. The evidence produced (IE ink) cannot be "restricted" to Gutenberg but also "not restricted" to the map at the same time. Either it is or it isn't, not both.

I'm not sure if my reasoning was adequately explained. Here are the wrong answers, anyway:
(B): Who cares whether or not the printers knew there was titanium in the ink? That is clearly not the issue here, both in regards to the argument or its flaws.
(C): The evidence is about whether or not titanium-containing ink was used prior to the 16th century, and the analysis suggests that it was. The issue is not whether or not the artifacts (Gutenberg bible, B-36) were from prior to the 16th century. We know they were. But what about titanium-containing ink? Evidence suggests that. He uses that evidence to reach his conclusion(s).
(D): Again, who cares? This is irrelevant.
(E): This is very possible, but in regards to the overall evidence/argument, is irrelevant. It is entirely possible, maybe even true, that titanium was discovered in the ink of the Vinland Map first, but it can't exactly be used to attack the logical structure of the argument.

I actually answered this question first by process of elimination. Always better to be sure though.
"I have free will, but not of my own choice. I have never freely chosen to have free will. I have to have free will, whether I like it or not!"
-- Raymond Smullyan
 
deedubbew
Thanks Received: 4
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 106
Joined: November 24th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by deedubbew Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:31 am

Why not answer choice C?
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by WaltGrace1983 Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:43 pm

deedubbew Wrote:Why not answer choice C?

I'll get to this and I'll also explain this problem in my own way too. Sometimes having many explanations really helps future test takers (some explanations click, others do not).This argument has one premise with two conclusions. For the purposes of clarity, I am going to break this argument up into two arguments with the same premises but different conclusions.

Argument #1
    Titanium found in the ink of Gutenberg Bible
    +
    Titanium found in another 15th century Bible, B-36
    +
    Titanium not found in any other of the numerous books analyzed
    →
    Hypothesis that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg = strongly supported

    Things to notice:
      (1) The conclusion is not validating or invalidating the hypothesis. All it is saying is that it is "strongly supported." The hypothesis could still be true; the hypothesis could still be false.
      (2) This argument makes sense. In fact, I think this argument is very rational. It is saying, "hey! Gutenberg had this ink, B-36 had this ink, no one else had this ink, Gutenberg probably printed B-36. That, to me at least, makes total sense and the fact that this conclusion has weak language ("strongly supports") makes this even better.


Argument #2
    Titanium found in the ink of Gutenberg Bible
    +
    Titanium found in another 15th century Bible, B-36
    +
    Titanium not found in any other of the numerous books analyzed
    →
    Presence of titanium ink in Vinland Map can no longer be regarded as a reason to doubt the map's authenticity

    Things to notice:

      (1) Once again, we get a fairly weak conclusion. It is not saying that we should accept or deny the Map's authenticity, just that this can no longer be a reason to doubt it.
      (2) This is also a pretty straightforward argument. The author is saying, "hey, B-36 had titanium ink and was printed in the 15th century. Vinland Map has titanium ink and thus we cannot just say that it wasn't printed in the 15th century just because it has titanium ink. This argument looks good and it makes sense.


THE PROBLEM:
Argument #1 is basing its conclusion - that Gutenberg printed B-36 on the idea of rarity: "there aren't any books that we saw with titanium ink so the hypothesis that Gutenberg printed the B-36 after using titanium ink in another Bible is warranted."

Argument #2 is basing its conclusion - that the Vinland Map cannot be discounted as inauthentic just because of its ink selection - on the idea that this titanium ink was used more widely in the 15th century. Look at the language of the #2's conclusion, "can no longer be regarded as a reason for doubting the map's authenticity..." Is this true? Not really. The author said it himself, the ink was not that widely used!

This is the problem. On one hand, the author is saying that the ink was not widely used enough to conclude that Gutenberg was in fact the printer but, on the other hand, the author is saying that ink was widely used enough to conclude that we shouldn't doubt its origin in the 15th century. This is fishy.

DISCUSSION/HOW TO SOLVE:
I'd bet very few people could see this right away. I know I didn't. The best way to solve this, I think, is process of elimination. In fact, I think the authors of the LSAT wanted you to solve it this way. Why can we eliminate the rest of these answers?

(B) "Would know" We don't care what people knew or didn't know. The point is that the titanium in the ink was used or not used. We can make an argument about the 15th century by saying, "we can tell if something from the 15th century is from the 15th century if the pages yellow. People from that era used a special type of paper that yellows at a rate of 94% every 500 years." Obviously this is made up but the point is that these 15th century people did not need to know anything about their tools for us to show that a particular characteristic about them - known or unknown - is enough for us to pin those particular tools to a certain time period.

(C) There are two things wrong: "Determination" and "location." We are not determining the date. The conclusion just calls for us to say that we "can no longer regarded XYZ as a reason..." not "from the titanium ink, we can determine that the Vinland Map is from the 15th century." In addition, "location" is simply never brought up and we don't care about it.

(D) We don't care about "appreciation." This is way off the mark.

(E) This centers on the "discovery" but we aren't concerned about that; we are concerned with the origin of the documents. It doesn't matter when things are discovered because we are arguing about the origin!

Conclusion: this problem is hard. It will probably be near-impossible to solve by looking for the right answer but much easier by looking for the wrong ones.
 
terpsfball09
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: September 09th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by terpsfball09 Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:52 pm

Wow, the explanations totally make sense, but the amount of inferences you have to make based on the conclusions is insane here! This is one of the most convoluted LR questions I've ever seen.

So, because the author connects B36 with having to have been written by Gutenberg, you have to make the assumption that the ink must have been rare? That's really tricky.
 
jm.kahn
Thanks Received: 10
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 88
Joined: September 02nd, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by jm.kahn Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:35 am

b16 Wrote:Answer A does not presume that the author is assuming that titanium ink is both rare and common. The answer’s language is "extremely restricted."

The author attributes B36 to Gutenberg under the assumption that titanium ink was EXTREMELY RESTRICTED in the 15th century and so if something is printed or written in titanium ink, it must have been made by Gutenberg. The author then brings up the Vinland Map (a famous Norse Map that was not made by Gutenberg) that is also created using titanium ink. The fact that the author believes there is other titanium ink work in the 15th century invalidates the logic that backs his claim that Gutenberg must’ve printed B36 just because it had titanium ink.

Whether or not titanium ink was rare or common is irrelevant. Even if the use of titanium ink were rare, a scenario in which even two people use titanium ink would invalidate the author’s ability to attribute B36 to Gutenberg (maybe it was the other titanium ink guy). The flaw in the argument is if there is evidence that people other than Gutenberg used titanium ink, and the author supplies this by mentioning the Vinland Map.


This i think addresses the core issue. The stim doesn't claim that the ink was both common and not common, like the previous post by mike.kim suggested. Choice A uses the term "was and was not, extremely restrictive" which is much different from "was and was not, common". It's wrong to suggest that author of the stim is assuming that titanium ink was "common" in drawing the conclusion about dispelling doubts that Vinland map didn't belong to 15th century. The author is only assuming that titanium ink was used by at least a few people (in other words, was not extremely restrictive) in drawing that conclusion.
 
ohthatpatrickfan1662
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: December 31st, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Until recently it was thought

by ohthatpatrickfan1662 Mon May 11, 2020 6:34 pm

Hello,

Can someone please help me understand how "This is of great significance" isn't the conclusion? To me it sounds like,
"This is of great significance" is the conclusion (it definitely sounds like one ie. needs support to back up WHY it's significant) and the part after the comma "since it not only strongly supports the idea that A but also B" is the support for that conclusion. Also, 'since' = because (indicates a premise/support). Why is this wrong?