Critical Reasoning

@VeritasPrepDavid, Long time back you posted guidelines for practicing for the GMAT from LSAT papers. You also advised on attempting only the first 18 or so questions as the quests increased in complexity . Below are some questions all of which i got wrong . I am having a real bad night . Could You u please advise as to what number could these questions correspond to on the LSAT Official Paper.I googled and found these quests to be from LSAT Paper # 45 # 47
There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling
ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far
surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes. It
seems, therefore, that early humans possessed an
aesthetic sense.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Most flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors
were not highly polished.
(B) The caves in which the highly polished flints
were found are unadorned by cave paintings.
(C) There is evidence that these highly polished
flints were used for display in religious
ceremonies.
(D) Flints were often used by early humans for
everyday chores other than hunting.
(E) Any benefits that an aesthetic sense would have
given to cave-dwelling humans are poorly
understood.

Although the geological record contains some hints of
major meteor impacts preceding mass extinctions, there
were many extinctions that did not follow any known
major meteor impacts. Likewise, there are many
records of major meteor impacts that do not seem to
have been followed by mass extinctions. Thus the
geological record suggests that there is no consistent
causal link between major meteor impacts and mass
extinctions.

Which one of the following assumptions enables the
argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

(A) If there were a consistent causal link between
major meteor impacts and mass extinctions,
then all major meteor impacts would be
followed by mass extinctions.
(B) Major meteor impacts and mass extinctions
cannot be consistently causally linked unless
many mass extinctions have followed major
meteor impacts.
(C) Of the mass extinctions that did not follow any
known major meteor impacts, few if any
followed major meteor impacts of which the
geological record contains no hints.
(D) If there is no consistent causal link between
major meteor impacts and mass extinctions,
then not all mass extinctions could have
followed major meteor impacts.
(E) There could be a consistent causal link between
major meteor impacts and mass extinctions
even if not every major meteor impact has
been followed by a mass extinction.

Reviewer: Many historians claim, in their own
treatment of subject matter, to be as little affected
as any natural scientist by moral or aesthetic
preconceptions. But we clearly cannot accept
these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy
to find instances of false historical explanations
embodying the ideological and other prejudices
of their authors.

The reviewer's reasoning is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that it

(A) takes for granted that the model of objectivity
offered by the natural sciences should apply in
other fields
(B) offers evidence that undermines rather than
supports the conclusion it reaches
(C) fails to recognize that many historians employ
methodologies that are intended to uncover and
compensate for prejudices
(D) takes for granted that some historical work that
embodies prejudices is written by historians
who purport to be objective
(E) fails to recognize that not all historical
explanations embodying ideologies are false

Mundasingh -

Actually it was the first 16 questions that are most useful to study because from 17 to 25 (or 26) the LSAT questions can get much more complex.

The first question is from the December 2004 test and it is question #18. It is a very complex question.

"18. There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes. It seems, therefore, that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Most flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors
were not highly polished.

(B) The caves in which the highly polished flints
were found are unadorned by cave paintings.

(C) There is evidence that these highly polished
flints were used for display in religious
ceremonies.

(D) Flints were often used by early humans for
everyday chores other than hunting.

(E) Any benefits that an aesthetic sense would have
given to cave-dwelling humans are poorly
understood.


Let's analyze this one:

If you look to the stimulus on this weaken question. The conclusion is "early humans possessed an
aesthetic sense." So how do we know that they possessed a sense of what is beautiful? Well the Most Important Premise is that "our cave-dwelling ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes."

This is something of a cause and effect set up - because we are told that the reason these flints are polished beyond what is needed for hunting is because the people had an aesthetic sense. To weaken this we can look for another reason that the flints were highly polished - other than the way they looked (aesthetics).

Choice D does this for us: "(D) Flints were often used by early humans for everyday chores other than hunting." If you notice, in the premise above we are told that the flints are polished more than is necessary for hunting. But what about other household chores? This is a reason to have more polished flints that has nothing to do with aesthetics.

Choice C was interesting, but it still relies on aesthetics. "(C) there is evidence that these highly polished flints were used for display in religious ceremonies."

Hi David , I was misled by option C in the question that you discussed .
Option C says the flints were displayed in religious ceremonies . In order to eliminate this dont we have to assume that the ceremonies have to be associated with aesthetics.

Can you please discuss the following CR ?

#Reviewer: Many historians claim, in their own
treatment of subject matter, to be as little affected
as any natural scientist by moral or aesthetic
preconceptions. But we clearly cannot accept
these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy
to find instances of false historical explanations
embodying the ideological and other prejudices
of their authors.

The reviewer's reasoning is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that it

(A) takes for granted that the model of objectivity
offered by the natural sciences should apply in
other fields
(B) offers evidence that undermines rather than
supports the conclusion it reaches
(C) fails to recognize that many historians employ
methodologies that are intended to uncover and
compensate for prejudices
(D) takes for granted that some historical work that
embodies prejudices is written by historians
who purport to be objective
(E) fails to recognize that not all historical
explanations embodying ideologies are false
_________________

mundasingh123 for the three questions that you posted i went with D, A, A

CR #2

A-the first part of the argument deals with the historians' views .....natural scientists, but when the author makes the conclusion it states "we clearly cannot accept
these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy
to find instances of false historical explanations
embodying the ideological and other prejudices
of their authors"......but which authors is he referring to? the argument was onyly talking about natural scientists not all authors in general

hope this is the right answer

jaygirl001 wrote:mundasingh123 for the three questions that you posted i went with D, A, A

CR #2

A-the first part of the argument deals with the historians' views .....natural scientists, but when the author makes the conclusion it states "we clearly cannot accept
these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy
to find instances of false historical explanations
embodying the ideological and other prejudices
of their authors"......but which authors is he referring to? the argument was onyly talking about natural scientists not all authors in general

hope this is the right answer

I dont remmber the oA s . I will have to google.However the OA to the second CR is D.