#2 - Museum curator: Our ancient Egyptian collection

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus a museum curator discusses a piece from the museum’s Egyptian collection: a
hippopotamus that was made from earthenware and looks like a children’s toy. The hippo was
found upside down, legs broken off, inside a tomb. The curator explains that the ancient Egyptians
believed that the dead had to fight an endless battle against animals, and that breaking the legs off of
something representing an animal was believed to aid the deceased in this fight.

Based on the ancient Egyptian beliefs discussed, and the state of the hippo when it was found, the
curator concludes that the hippo had been used as a religious object, not as a children’s toy.

Reordered, the argument’s components break down as follows:

• Premise: The ancient Egyptians believed that the dead fight beasts in an endless battle.
  
  Premise: They also believed that breaking legs off of an animal model would help the
  dead in this fight.
  
  Premise: The hippopotamus was found in a tomb with its legs broken off.
  
  Conclusion: Thus, the hippo must have been a religious object, not a children’s toy.

The stimulus is followed by an Assumption question, so the correct answer choice will present an
assumption on which the curator’s argument depends. To confirm any answer choice as a needed
assumption, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique: the correct choice, when logically
negated, will weaken the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (A): The curator’s argument does not rely on the assumption that the tomb belonged
to an adult. To confirm that this answer choice is not necessary to the argument, the Assumption
Negation Technique can be applied; the negated version of this choice is as follows:

• The tomb in which the hippo was found was the tomb of a child.

This would not weaken the author’s conclusion, because a figurine found in the tomb of a child
might be a toy, or it might be a religious object. This confirms that this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This choice, which provides that such figures were never used as children’s toys,
would certainly strengthen the author’s conclusion, but it is not an assumption that is required by the
argument. To confirm this answer to be incorrect, we can apply the Assumption negation technique.
The negated version of the assumption would be as follows:

• Earthenware figures were sometimes used as children’s toys in ancient Egypt.

The negated version would not disprove the author’s conclusion that the hippo in question was not a
toy, so this is not the correct answer choice to this Assumption question.

Answer choice (C): The assumption presented in this choice, that the tomb remained sealed until being opened by the archeologists, is not an assumption that is required by the author’s argument—
the author’s conclusion could be true even if the tomb had been opened at some point. To confirm
whether or not this assumption is a necessary part of the argument, we can logically negate it, or take
it away, and note whether or not the argument falls apart:

• The tomb was reentered at some point before the archeologists entered.

The author’s conclusion could still be true even if this were the case, so this cannot be an assumption
on which the author’s argument relies.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Since the museum curator takes into
account the fact that the hippo’s legs were broken off, and draws a conclusion that is based partly
on that fact, the curator must assume that the legs were broken deliberately, and not accidentally. To
confirm this as the correct choice, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique, and logically
negate the assumption, noting the effect on the author’s argument:

• The hippo’s legs were broken off by some natural occurrence after placement in the tomb.

If a natural occurrence was to blame for the hippo’s broken legs, then this would clearly weaken
the author’s argument, which attributed the broken legs to a deliberate effort to aid the dead in their
eternal war against the beasts.

Answer choice (E): The broken legs are the most important part of the story—not the fact that the
hippo happened to be found upside down. The author’s argument does not rely on the assumption
that the hippo was found face down, and this can be confirmed with the application of the
Assumption Negation Technique. The negated version of this choice would be as follows:

• The hippo was not originally found face down.

This negated version, of course, does not play into the author’s argument in any way, confirming that
this choice cannot be an assumption on which the author’s argument relies.

[lsatstudier]

Hi,

Could someone please explain why the answer is D? I thought it was A. Also, any tricks to remembering the process for Assumption questions? I feel like I came across so many of these types of questions in this section of the test and did so poorly.

Also, is the first LR section more difficult than the second one usually? It always seems like I do so much better on the second LR section than the first. Any advice?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, Studier. Like you, I found A attractive at first, but when I kept reading and got to D I felt it was a much better answer and more closely resembled my prephrase. Let's see why it's better.

First, the broken legs seem to be an important part of the argument to our author, because this was meant to help the dead person in their afterlife battle. If the legs were not broken off intentionally, this takes away a key piece of evidence for this being a religious object.

Second, the author tells us that the Egyptians believed that the dead had to wage war against beasts. Nowhere does he tell us that only adults had to do this, so it leaves open the possibility that even children who died would have to wage this battle in the afterlife.

As to the technique, we call it the Assumption Negation Technique. To test your contender answers (A and D here), try negating them and see what effect the negation has on the argument. The correct answer, when negated, will destroy the argument, either by directly contradicting the conclusion or by taking away key evidence.

When we negate answer A, we turn it into "the tomb was that of a child". Does that do major damage to the argument? No, because the author never said that children don't also wage that battle. The object could still be religious, rather than a toy.

Negating D, however, does major damage. If the legs were not broken off intentionally, but occurred after burial, that takes away a big piece of evidence that the author relied upon. That's what we are looking for! This makes D the better answer.

Give that process a try, and be sure to read all five answer choices looking for the best answer. Good luck!

[actionjackson]

For this question I was torn between answer choices C and D as my contenders and selected incorrect answer choice C. I used the negation technique for both C and D and thought for C that, "If the tomb in which the hippo was found WAS reentered from time of burial until archaeologists opened it" then those unknown intruders would have the capability to alter or damage the hippo in some way. And the author's argument would fall apart. I guess I'm just not getting why choice D is correct? I looked at that answer choice and thought well that could be true but doesn't have to be true.

[David Boyle]

For this question I was torn between answer choices C and D as my contenders and selected incorrect answer choice C. I used the negation technique for both C and D and thought for C that, "If the tomb in which the hippo was found WAS reentered from time of burial until archaeologists opened it" then those unknown intruders would have the capability to alter or damage the hippo in some way. And the author's argument would fall apart. I guess I'm just not getting why choice D is correct? I looked at that answer choice and thought well that could be true but doesn't have to be true.

Hello actionjackson,

But even if someone entered, that doesn't mean they necessarily did anything to the hippo. So D is a better answer than C.

Hope this helps,
David

[actionjackson]

For this question I was torn between answer choices C and D as my contenders and selected incorrect answer choice C. I used the negation technique for both C and D and thought for C that, "If the tomb in which the hippo was found WAS reentered from time of burial until archaeologists opened it" then those unknown intruders would have the capability to alter or damage the hippo in some way. And the author's argument would fall apart. I guess I'm just not getting why choice D is correct? I looked at that answer choice and thought well that could be true but doesn't have to be true.

Hello actionjackson,

But even if someone entered, that doesn't mean they necessarily did anything to the hippo. So D is a better answer than C.

Hope this helps,
David

David,
That's pretty helpful, just want to make sure I'm getting this though. So basically because D is more encompassing with the terms "natural occurrence" it cuts off all alternative explanations for the broken legs that fall under the umbrella of natural occurrences. Whereas C brings in too many assumptions that are by commonplace standards superfluous. Essentially, my thinking here should have been earthquakes, not tomb raiders?

Thank you,
actionjackson

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there actionjackson, thanks for asking. It's not so much that natural occurrences are more encompassing than tomb raiders, but rather that Answer D specifically says that no natural occurrence caused the legs to break, and answer C gives no info related to the legs. If answer C had instead said "nobody reentered the tomb later and broke the legs", then it would be an assumption of the argument. The negation of that statement would be "somebody reentered the tomb later and broke the legs", and that would wreck the argument in much the same way that the negation of D does already.

So, it's not that earthquakes are better than tomb raiders, but that earthquakes that don't break legs are better than tomb raiders that simply don't enter!

I think you have it. Good work!