Q20 - Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
P: The time period in which we found the earliest evidence of music is probably the time period where music was developed.

G: This time period used a particularly hardy material to construct instruments.

Answer Anticipation:
When you have two speakers in a Procedure question, it's important to start by seeing if they dis/agree on the premises and conclusion. G doesn't disagree with P's premise, just his conclusion. G does so by bringing up a new fact that adds context calling the jump from the premise to the conclusion (i.e., the assumption) into question - it may be the first we've discovered, but it might not be the first because bone lasts longer.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This would be a leave-and-circle-back answer, but it'd survive the first pass because we know G thinks the bone flute isn't definitive in this case since other instruments could have degraded. After checking the other answers, this would be my selection.

(B) G questions whether the bone flute is the first musical instrument, not whether it's the first one we have evidence for.

(C) P's conclusion isn't particularly general. Also, G doesn't bring up a counterexample (that would be earlier evidence of music).

(D) G doesn't make a parallel argument; she introduces a new consideration calling the connection between P's premise and conclusion into question. This answer refers to a reductio ad absurdum - look it up!

(E) G doesn't draw a conclusion, and she also uses new evidence, not P's evidence.

Takeaway/Pattern:
On a two-speaker Procedure question, start by seeing if the two speakers dis/agree on the premises and conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[JamesM914]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
P: The time period in which we found the earliest evidence of music is probably the time period where music was developed.

G: This time period used a particularly hardy material to construct instruments.

Answer Anticipation:
When you have two speakers in a Procedure question, it's important to start by seeing if they dis/agree on the premises and conclusion. G doesn't disagree with P's premise, just his conclusion. G does so by bringing up a new fact that adds context calling the jump from the premise to the conclusion (i.e., the assumption) into question - it may be the first we've discovered, but it might not be the first because bone lasts longer.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This would be a leave-and-circle-back answer, but it'd survive the first pass because we know G thinks the bone flute isn't definitive in this case since other instruments could have degraded. After checking the other answers, this would be my selection.

(B) G questions whether the bone flute is the first musical instrument, not whether it's the first one we have evidence for.

(C) P's conclusion isn't particularly general. Also, G doesn't bring up a counterexample (that would be earlier evidence of music).

(D) G doesn't make a parallel argument; she introduces a new consideration calling the connection between P's premise and conclusion into question. This answer refers to a reductio ad absurdum - look it up!

(E) G doesn't draw a conclusion, and she also uses new evidence, not P's evidence.

Takeaway/Pattern:
On a two-speaker Procedure question, start by seeing if the two speakers dis/agree on the premises and conclusion.

#officialexplanation

"Insufficient for Patterson's purposes," what the hell does "purposes" mean here? I hated answer A because of that word "purposes." Once again, I notice a pattern with the LR section where we are left with choosing the best shi%%ty answer. I am convinced the LSAC wants test takers to fail when they put ridiculous answer choices. There is a fine line between making the LSAC challenging and wanting test takers to fail, and I am convinced the LSAC is leaning more towards the latter. It's no wonder why many law schools are now accepting GRE results instead of LSAT scores.