#15 - A scientific team compared gold samples from several

[nrpandolfo]

Why is A correct? even if the mine tapped intoa large gold deposit, you are still digging up the artifacts from that mine?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi nrpandolfo,
For Answer A if the mine tapped into a source that deposited gold into nearby riverbeds, the gold in the artifacts may have been "dug from" the river rather than the mine. So in this case the original source of the gold would not be relevant, it is where they dug the gold up from that answer A focuses on in order to weaken the argument.
Hope that helps,
-Malila

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

Could you explain why (D) is incorrect? Many thanks!

[lsatnoobie]

So I think D is wrong because the premises specifically tell us that “the trace element ratios in the samples were unlike any other known mine.”

D tell us that the ancient gold artificacts were constructed from presumably melting gold from earlier artificacts. Earlier artifacts from where though? Other gold mines? This can’t be true because we are told these samples are unique in their composition.

If you’re perhaps thinking the earlier artifacts also came from the same ancient mine in the premise, then D doesn’t weaken.

We are trying to prove that the gold DIDNT come from the ancient mine. In this second interpretation, D would just be saying “the ancient artifact samples discovered by the scientific team came from earlier artifacts from the ancient mine.” This wouldn’t weaken at all.

[coralconsulting77]

I am going to give this one a crack since I am not happy with the explanations available for it. I missed this on my preptest, but caught it on a blind review, and there is one key word in here that really sways the argument. I have noticed this as a pattern on weaken questions, particularly one very challenging question on PT (69 or 70)

The premises state:

-A scientific team compared gold samples from several ancient artifacts w/ those in west Asia.
-The ratios were all similar and were unlike trace element ratios from any other mine.

The conclusion:
It is therefore likely that gold in the artifacts was dug from the ancient mine.

Question type: Weaken Except (4 do not weaken, one does)

The reason I underscore dug, is that although the argument is about the source of where the gold may be, and that there may be a reason why the gold also came from another source simply by tapping into an underground reservoir I also believe this answer largely hinges on the word dug, because the assumption that the source was from elsewhere is a pretty broad assumption, however, that combined with casting doubt on the way the gold was accessed does weaken the conclusion.

If we conclude that the source was dug from the ancient mine, yet we know that the gold from the ancient mine was cast into nearby riverbeds it weakens the likelihood that the gold was DUG from the nearby mine. Suggesting that gold may be in a riverbed nearby suggests that there may have been alternative means of acquiring the gold. Furthermore, that key word is necessary for the author to narrow the scope enough which allows us to undermine it with answer choice A. Even though the explanations focus on the the possibility that the gold may tap into a source that comes from another source, that does not exactly meant the source "the ancient mine" would not be the source of the gold. Even if the gold form the ancient mine tapped into an underground deposit, if it is derived from the ancient mine we still could conclude that it is from the ancient mine.

B is wrong because it is a strengthener, it bridges the gap between the mine and the artifacts
C is wrong because, if anything, the mine being operated before the construction suggests that the gold could have been extracted at that point and as such rules out an alternative temporal cause, thus strengthening it.
D is wrong because gold artifacts being constructed from earlier artifacts does nothing to weaken the argument, if anything, we can conclude that the gold has been old and recycled, two reasons which support that the gold is old and has been in use for ancient artifacts.
E The transportation of gold to ancient faraway destinations definitely strengthens the connection.

Maybe this is a little off base, but for me the key word here really solidifies how answer choice A weakens the argument.

[Brook Miscoski]

Hello,

Could you explain why (D) is incorrect? Many thanks!

Lilmissunshine,

(D) is incorrect because even if the gold was recycled from a previous gold item, it could still initially come from the ancient mine indicated in the stimulus. The argument is about where the gold was first obtained.

[Brook Miscoski]

The reason I underscore dug, is that although the argument is about the source of where the gold may be, and that there may be a reason why the gold also came from another source simply by tapping into an underground reservoir I also believe this answer largely hinges on the word dug, because the assumption that the source was from elsewhere is a pretty broad assumption, however, that combined with casting doubt on the way the gold was accessed does weaken the conclusion.

If we conclude that the source was dug from the ancient mine, yet we know that the gold from the ancient mine was cast into nearby riverbeds it weakens the likelihood that the gold was DUG from the nearby mine. Suggesting that gold may be in a riverbed nearby suggests that there may have been alternative means of acquiring the gold.

Coralconsulting, on this point I don't think it was important to notice the word "dug." What was critical was realizing that (A) indicated that gold from that vein supplied riverbeds with lots of gold, providing an alternative source for gold with the same characteristics. Doesn't matter then whether it is dug up or sifted out, because it's not from the mine.

At the same time, people who prepare and succeeds on the LSAT are not going to be completely homogeneous in how they express their analysis. You were in the right area to understand (A).

B is wrong because it is a strengthener, it bridges the gap between the mine and the artifacts
C is wrong because, if anything, the mine being operated before the construction suggests that the gold could have been extracted at that point and as such rules out an alternative temporal cause, thus strengthening it.
D is wrong because gold artifacts being constructed from earlier artifacts does nothing to weaken the argument, if anything, we can conclude that the gold has been old and recycled, two reasons which support that the gold is old and has been in use for ancient artifacts.
E The transportation of gold to ancient faraway destinations definitely strengthens the connection.

On these, it is fair to say that B and C plausibly strengthen the argument. D is a big stretch, although you are correct about the possibility it allows. E is just irrelevant, unless we're told that the artifacts were found far from the mine.

[coralconsulting77]

Thanks for the feedback, just trying to really flesh it out.

[cornflakes]

@coralconsultng77 appreciate your discussion here - I also looked into your identification of "dug" and I don't believe it is a distinction that needed to be made in order to get the question right.

Technically, answer A actually suggests that the mine itself, and the gold inside it, originates from this large underground deposit, which also feeds into other sources, such as the nearby riverbeds. So the new information tells us that the gold (with the trace element ratio unique to that specific mine and no others) actually originated from a starting source that actually feeds into other subsidiary sources (ie the mine and the riverbeds).

This new information substantially weakens the conclusion, which assumes that the gold had to have come (or been dug) from the mine - it suggests it could have been found, dug, whatever you want to call it, from a source that wasn't the actual mine.

I missed this on my timed PT because I didn't really grasp what the stimulus was arguing, but on my BR it was much more clear.

[Adam Tyson]

Bingo! An alternate source of the gold - the riverbeds - weakens the claim that it had to have been dug from the mine. It could have been gotten somewhere else!