#5 - Sickles found at one archaeological site had scratched

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

The stimulus in this Weaken question contains a clear causal argument about the relationship between scratches on sickle blades and whether or not the sickles were used to harvest grain. More specifically, we are told that sickle blades become scratched (effect) whenever sickles are used to harvest grain (cause). And since sickles found at the first site had scratched blades, the author concludes that these scratches must have resulted from using the sickles to harvest grain.

Because you are asked to weaken the argument in the stimulus, you should look for an answer choice that attacks the causal relationship given, and introduces the possibility that the scratches resulted from something other than harvesting grain.

Answer choice (A): This answer is about sickles that have not yet been found, so it does not address the argument about the sickles with the scratched blades.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed previously, this answer choice tells us that an alternate cause must have led to the scratches (not harvesting grain), so it strongly attacks the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): The ritual uses of the sickles do not matter to the argument. All that matters is whether the sickles at the first site were scratched from harvesting grain.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice actually strengthens the idea that sickles at the second site were not used for harvesting grain.

Answer choice (E): It does not matter who made the sickles. All that matters is how they were used.

[lina2020]

Hi PowerScore,

I found this question rather straightforward; however, if this question had not been in the section labeled "Causality and Weaken questions", I would have interpreted this as a purely conditional stimulus because of the word, "whenever". For quick reference, it reads "since sickle blades always become scratched whenever they are used to harvest grain, this evidence shows that..." I would diagram it as:

Premise: Sickle blades used to harvest grain --> Sickle Blades become scratched

Conclusion: Sickles found at first site had scratched blades --> Sickles were used to harvest grain (Mistaken Reversal)

Due to the simplicity of this question specifically, I think one would still pick the same answer choice whether they thought the stimulus is conditional or causal but please explain what makes this causal? I'm trying to understand the general reasoning here so as not to overlook this in other questions.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Lina,

Even if we started this problem thinking about it in terms of conditional reasoning, the question is asking us to weaken the argument, which means we have to critically evaluate the argument and think about any potential holes in the reasoning (just because it's possible to diagram something doesn't mean that it is inherently correct). So ultimately, we should land in the same place, where we are thinking about the inherent weaknesses with the causal argument that is presented.

What makes it causal is simply the fact that a phenomena is observed, and the speaker posits a potential cause for that phenomena. Whenever we see that on the LSAT, we should be thinking about the inherent problems with causal reasoning, because arguments based on causal reasoning are very easy to attack.

[Nabin123]

I have been trying to get help with weaken questions but have not been able to get any even though I paid for the course. But I desperately need help with weaken questions. I keep getting them wrong and I do not understand why. I was wondering if there is any recommendations on what basic things I should go back and look into. But I wanted to share my thoughts on how I am doing then in my head as I work through the questions.

June 2003 S3 Q5:

A: I thought this one was a looser because it focuses on the wrong thing. Takes the idea of finding Sickles at a archaeological site to discuss the ones that have not even been found yet. (Out of Scope)
B: This answer choice just seems opposite of what I wanted. This one feels like it just attacks the premises in a way that feels like they are just attacking a premise by arguing it is false. (Although this the correct answer, I do not understand I guess)
C: I thought this was the correct answer because it gives it a second use making the premise wrong because maybe they used these sickles in rituals that resulted in causing it to scratch. Like it opens the door for other things to cause the scratches and not just harvesting,
D: Just goes out of scope by discussing another site when we are just talking about the one single one where they found these tools.
E: Who really cares who made it.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Nabin,

I'll start with this question and then talk a bit about weaken questions in general.

For this question, we have a causal relationship suggested in the stimulus. Harvesting CAUSED scratches on the sickles. When we want to weaken a causal relationship, we attack that connection. There are typically five ways to do this.

1. Alternate cause. This is what answer choice (B) does. It isn't specific in naming what the alternate cause is. However, it says that the scratches were made by something other than harvesting. If the scratches were made by something else, they weren't caused by harvesting. This would weaken the relationship between harvesting and scratches from the stimulus.

2. Cause without effect. Here, we'd look for a situation where sickles are used for harvesting, but they don't have scratches. None of the answer choices do this.

3. Effect without cause. This would be finding a situation where sickles aren't used for harvesting, but they still have scratches. None of the answer choices do this.

4. Reverse cause and effect. Here, this would be something that would suggest that the scratched sickles were better for harvesting for some reason, so the scratches cause them to be used for harvesting. None of the answer choices do this.

5. Problem with the data. In this case, there aren't surveys or other sources of numerical data. None of the answer choices does this.

With answer choice (C), I think you were suggesting an alternate potential cause. But the problem is that answer choice (C) says that sickles from BOTH sites were used for ritual purposes. That wouldn't explain why only the sickles from the first site had scratches. If we have two sets of sickles with two different effects (with scratches and without scratches) we can't use a single cause to explain both effects. It would mean using one cause for two opposite effects here, and that wouldn't make sense.

Generally speaking with weaken questions, we are looking for something to expand the gap between the premise(s) and the conclusion. The premises are the information we trust. The conclusion comes from reasoning we don't trust. We need to make that gap bigger---expand the distance between the facts and the conclusion. With weaken questions that have a causal element, you can expedite the process a bit by thinking through the five ways to weaken a causal relationship that I described above. With non-causal weaken questions, you'll want to prephrase what you think the correct answer should do. Prephrasing is key to both accuracy and speed on this test, so you'll want to practice it and practice it. In the early stages, I recommend actually writing down a prephrase in untimed practice, so that you can watch and track how you prephrase and how you do on the question itself.

Hope that helps!

[schocktherapy]

Hi guys,

All this question is testing is whether you know the difference between sufficiency versus necessity. I will check out the sufficiency verse necessity drills online or in a book to get you more training. If the sickles were used for harvesting then they must have scratches on them. But having scratches on a sickle is not sufficient to conclude that they were used for harvesting. It's similar to the idea that if you've been shot you will bleed but just because you're bleeding doesn't mean you got shot (i.e., you could have been stabbed; you could have fallen; you could have been hit by a car).


If the sickles are used in harvesting they're *GOING* to have scratches, but just the sole fact that the sickles have scratches doesn't mean they were used in harvesting.