#24 - Until recently it was thought that ink used before the
The answer for this 'flaw' type is answer A. I was confused of the expression at the end of the ansWhwe, "extremely restricted." What is restricted?
This is a pretty confusing way to write the answer choice. A is roughly saying that "the stimulus bases its conclusions on the premises that titanium was both commonly used as an ingredient (not restricted) and hardly used as an ingredient (restricted).
The author indicates that titanium was restricted when he or she makes the conclusion that, because two 15th century bibles used titanium ink, they must be from the same author. If titanium was widely used as an ingredient, this conclusion could not be drawn because anyone using ink that contained titanium could have written B-36.
However, the author also suggests that titanium was fairly widely used as an ingredient. By claiming that the Vinland Map can now be considered authentic, the author suggests that we should accept many people were using titanium-based ink in the 15th century.
So a criticism can be made on the basis of this apparent contradiction. One of the author's conclusions relies on widespread use of titanium as an ink ingredient while the other conclusion relies on titanium ink being used by only one specific writer.
I hope this clears things up. The question is already difficult and the weird wording of the answer choice makes it even harder to spot the answer.
Yes, your explanation was clear enough to understand this tricky question! Thank you!
Hello, Yeah I don't see how the answer is A. I chose B. Please explain to me why the correct response is A and not B in this Flaw in the Reasoning Question.
The flaw in this argument is that the author is using the rareness of titanium in the ink of 15th century texts to strongly support that the B-36 Bible was printed by Gutenberg but he is also using the presence of titanium in the ink of the Vinland Map to support that it was printed in the 15th century. This presents a contradiction. If titanium in ink in the 15th century was widespread enough that it's presence cannot be used to say that a document was not printed in the 15th century, then the use of titanium in ink would not be enough to trace a book back to a specific printer. On the flip side, if the use of titanium in ink in the 15th century is rare enough to trace a book back to a specific printer, then it's use is not widespread enough to support that other 15th century texts might have used titanium ink. Answer choice (A) describes this flaw so it is the correct answer.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because this argument does not depend on the printers and artists of the 15th century knowing whether or not their ink contained titanium. Whether they were aware of the presence of titanium in their ink or not, the titanium would still have been there and it's presence was either rare enough to be able to trace specific books back to a specific printer or widespread enough to make the presence of titanium not enough to rule out something as having been printed in that century.
Hope this helps!
I narrowed down the answer choices for this question to A and C, and ultimately chose C. I understand why A is correct after reading the explanation, but I want to make sure I'm clear on why C is wrong as well. Is it because the stimulus doesn't say the titanium ink helped determine the date and location of the document's printing, but rather that the titanium ink helps to determine whether the map is authentic?
Pretty close, Taylor! I would say that you're right that the stimulus does not attempt to determine a date or location based on the presence of titanium in the ink, but they don't use the titanium to show that the map is authentic. Rather, they use what they know about titanium to show that you can't prove that it is NOT authentic. There's a mighty big difference between proving something is true and saying that you cannot prove it is false! That's the type of distinction that trips up a lot of test takers, and so it is exactly the kind of the thing the authors of this test absolutely LOVE to play with. It's kind of like a flaw in the reasoning based upon a lack of evidence. If I say your evidence fails to prove something, that is not the same as saying that it proves the thing is false.
Good work, keep at it!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
I know this is an error of usage of evidence type flaw. but I see both the elements of overgeneralization and lack of evidence as false/true . Am I on the right track
This is actually an example of an internal contradiction/inconsistency flaw. How? The stimulus draws two essentially opposite inferences from the same premise that the heretofore unknown use of titanium in ink prior to the 16th century is in fact present in two early books, the Gutenberg Bible and B-36. From that evidence, it concludes that Gutenberg printed B-36 (implying that only Gutenberg was using ink containing titanium at the time) and that the Vinland Map is authentic and was drawn in the 15th century, because its ink contains titanium. We can infer from its dubious provenance that the map's creator is unknown, and likely not Gutenberg. So the stimulus cannot logically use the presence of titanium to show that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg and to prove that the Vinland Map was authentic.
Hope this helps!
Helps a lot, thank you so much sir