to the top

#13 - Numismatist: In medieval Spain, most gold coins were

moshei24
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:26 pm
Points: 0

Is the way (B) is supported that in the last sentence it says that "the mints produced other kinds of coins that had much purer gold content," which refers to having purer gold content than the Senegalese minted coins, because it was producing other kinds of coins + Senegalese gold was never refined? And since Senegalese gold was the purest at 92%, the coins produced in the mint had to have been less than 92%, which supports the fact that the mints took unrefined gold with a content of less than 92% and refined it and then produced the coins?

Did I understand that properly? Am I off somewhere?

Thanks!
Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Points: 1,249

The Senegalese gold's content was the highest known--the gold mined there had gold content that was so high that it could be used for coins without having to be refined.

This implies that some other gold, mined from other sources (that would have had lower content) would have needed to be refined in order to produce coins.

I hope that clears that one up--let me know--thanks!

~Steve
Steve Stein
PowerScore Test Preparation
moshei24
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:26 pm
Points: 0

That's just a simple way of saying what I complicated?
LSAT2018
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:11 am
Points: 274

Is the inference taken from the opening sentence, 'most gold coins were minted from gold mined in West Africa, in the area that is now Senegal' ?

So in determining the inference, the logical opposite of most gold coins would be some gold coins? I know that most gold coins were from Senegal, and Senegalese gold was never refined but how can the inference be on refined gold?
BostonLawGuy
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:49 pm
Points: 52

I would love it if someone can please help me understand what I keep thinking is a contradiction in the premises.

1. Gold mined in Senegal was the "purest known."
2. The mints produced OTHER kinds of coins that had a much purer gold content.

Is the author stating that other kinds of coins other than those made from Senegal gold have much purer gold content?
Who Ray
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:18 am
Points: 27

Hey hey Boston Law Guy!

1. Yes the Senegal mines produced the purest gold
2. Yes that's also true!

"Refining" solves the paradox you have identified. Through refining, you can up the gold content of any given piece of ore, so even though the initial metal the mints received from non-senegal mines were >92% gold, they were able to process them to a higher percentage.

The Dead Sea has a salt content of 31%, while the ocean has a salt content of about 3%. The Dead Sea water has a higher salt content than the ocean water; however, I can boil ocean water long enough such that its salt content is higher than the Dead Sea's.

I hope that clears things up!
Cheers,
Who Ray
BostonLawGuy
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:49 pm
Points: 52

A big thanks to you!! I went back and saw that the stimulus stated that the mints PRODUCED coins with purer content. So the refinement process must have made the gold even more pure than the Senegalese gold.

Still don't know how refining gold changes the purity of it, but glad you cleared this up for me!
Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:55 am
Points: 131

Hi Boston Law Guy,

I completely agree that it's confusing! I imagined the refining process to be similar to the process for filtering tap water. You start with something less pure, and filter out until you get a more refined or pure product. The Senegalese gold started more pure to begin with, but the non-Senegalese can be filtered to obtain a greater purity.

Great job noticing the produce/refined and mined distinction!
Rachael