#24 - Until recently it was thought that ink used before the

[lathlee]

Helps a lot, thank you so much sir

[gen2871]

Hi dear LSAT Masters:

How would 2, possibly three uses of titanium be considered widely used?

The majority of the texts are not used, whereas only on rare instances (2 bibles plus 1 map) is still pretty rare usage to me. I dont see it as being widely used, and what is the guideline to consider the frequency in these lsat passages?

I simply dont see the internal contradiction. Gutenberg's printed bible contains Titanium, so that B-36 is probably printed by him as well (weak indication, author used strong wording"strongly supports"). Also because Titanium was used in printing in the 15th century, hence the authentity of the Vinland Map was conformed. It is still a rare usage because up until recently had the new discovery confirmed so. I guess I have hard time seeing two usages of the Titanium being considered as widely usage.

Please help me out here. Much much appreciated.

[Adam Tyson]

The contradiction here, gen, is that the author thinks that, on the one hand, the evidence can be used to tie a book by an unknown printer to a known printer, Gutenberg. That's suggesting that use of the ink was "extremely restricted" - if the ink has titanium, it's probably a Gutenberg. On the other hand, he uses the SAME evidence to support the claim that a map, presumably NOT printed by Gutenberg, could be authentic. That would make sense if he was arguing that titanium was NOT "extremely restricted." So he is using the same bit of evidence to try to support two opposing claims - it was very restricted (Gutenberg did it) and it was not very restricted (other people probably used it). Which is it? Is Gutenberg the likely sole source, or was it being used by multiple printers?

The author wants to have it both ways, and that is the essence of a (very rare) internal contradiction flaw.

[gen2871]

What a splendid explanation, Adam! Thank you!

[Lsat180Please]

Can you discuss why E is incorrect? I understand why A is correct now but I feel like the fact that the presence of titanium in the Vinland Map had been known while they were only recently able to discover titanium in Gutenberg's bibles shows a flaw the author overlooked. Thanks!

[Ben DiFabbio]

Can you discuss why E is incorrect? I understand why A is correct now but I feel like the fact that the presence of titanium in the Vinland Map had been known while they were only recently able to discover titanium in Gutenberg's bibles shows a flaw the author overlooked. Thanks!

Hey,

I can see why you might regard that as a "flaw" in that it is a detail that the author failed to mention explicitly, but it is not a flaw in the world of the LSAT--that is to say, a flaw in the logic of the argument. A flaw in the argument can only be something that illustrates why the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. The timing of the discovery of ink in the Vinland Map vs. the timing of the discovery of the Gutenburg and the B-36 Bibles does not get at the reason why the premises don't guarantee the conclusion.

Here's the breakdown:
P1. Titanium ink was recently detected in the Gutenburg Bible and the B-36 Bible, but not in any other 15th century books.
P2. (implicit) The presence of titanium ink in the Vinland Map has been regarded as a reason for doubting that it was really from the 15th century.
Conclusion: The B-36 Bible was printed by Gutenburg and the Vinland Map is really from the 15th century.

The two-part conclusion depends on two contradictory assumptions: 1) Titanium ink was so scarce that the B-36 Bible couldn't have possibly been printed by anyone but Gutenburg; and 2) titanium ink was so abundant that its presence in Vinland Map can't possibly be seen as a reason to doubt that it was made in the 15th century.

Hope that helps!

[Val]

Hi there,

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 about "...,since it not only strongly supports the idea that A but also B" is the support for that conclusion. Since = because (indicates a premise/support). Why is this wrong?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Val!

I think your understanding of the "This is of great significance" language is correct--it introduces a conclusion.

That language is implicit in Ben's breakdown of the conclusion in the prior post: "Conclusion: [This is of great significance because it shows that] The B-36 Bible was printed by Gutenberg and the Vinland Map is really from the 15th century."

You're also right in your process of assessing whether or not it is a conclusion, by asking whether it is used in support of other statements or instead is supported by other statements. Here, you correctly point out that a certain finding's being "significant" is what other statements in the stimulus support (it is presumably significant because of the implications about Gutenberg and the Vinland Map).

With that conclusion in mind, one can see why there is a flaw in the reasoning, identified in answer choice (A): "the results of the analysis are interpreted as indicating that the use of titanium as an ingredient in fifteenth-century ink both was, and was not, extremely restricted." Part of author's conclusion about the significance of the findings is that the author understands them to imply that B-36 was created by Gutenberg--i.e., since the Gutenberg Bible contained titanium it assumed that another source with titanium must have also been created by Gutenberg. This assumes that titanium was especially restricted, such that one could know that a book's author was Gutenberg because it contained titanium (titanium Gutenberg).

At the same time, it takes the findings to mean that the existence of titanium in another object--the Vinland Map--to support its authenticity. This second assumption is in tension with the first one. That is, perhaps the findings do indeed show that titanium was indeed used before the 16th century, earlier than previously thought, with the findings of titanium in the ink of the Gutenberg Bible supporting this. However, if titanium use in ink really was limited to Gutenberg, then this undercuts the attempt to argue that its use was more widespread and extended to the Vinland Map.

Perhaps that explanation is unnecessary--again to your concern with identifying the conclusion, it certainly seems that you looked in the right place!

[Val]

Hey Luke thanks for getting back to me,

Ah I see, so the entire statement is the conclusion. I assumed the part after "since..." was just supporting "This is of great significance". How can you tell that it's also part of the conclusion and not merely support?

[Christen Hammock]

Hey Val!

The words that follow "since" tell us more about what the author is concluding. You're right that the line between "concluding" and "supporting the conclusion" feels a little fuzzy in this question, probably because the idea that something is "significant" is so vague to begin with.

Here, there's a distinction between the two types of statements in the stimulus: fact-based statements about titanium in ink, and evaluative statements about what we do with those facts. The latter (i.e., "This finding is significant because X and Y") evaluates the facts and does something with them, so it's part of the conclusion. In another stimulus, though, the same statements might serve as support for a conclusion rather than the conclusion itself!