#2 - Ancient humans in eastern North America hunted mammoths

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Will,

First, it's important to realize that this is an assumption question rather than a justify question. What this means is that the correct answer will be something necessary for the argument rather than something that is sufficient to prove the conclusion.

Second, it is also important to understand that arguments can have many assumptions, and we are just looking for one of them in these questions.

As I mentioned in my prior post, the author of this argument is making two big assumptions in this argument.

1. The mammoths were still alive when the engraving was made.

2. That the settlement was occupied when the engraving was made.

Either one of these would be an acceptable answer to an assumption question.

Here, Answer A addresses the second one.

You seem to think that it is a problem that this Answer doesn't prove the conclusion (without also adding assumption #1), but we are not being asked to prove the conclusion. We are simply asked for 1 of the assumptions necessary for the argument.

Let me give a simple example to illustrate.

Imagine I claim "My friend John is a great tennis player."

What is an assumption necessary for this claim.

1. That John can hit the ball over the net.

2. That John can serve the ball.

3. That John can swing a racket.

All of these are assumptions necessary for this claim, even though none of these justifies the claim.

[zebrowski]

I get that the answer choice (A) is required by the argument and that this is a Supporter Assumption question. But isn't answer choice (C) also required by the argument?

If there were some mammoths left in North America when mammoths disappeared from eastern North America, wouldn't it impugn the conclusion that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in this area (that is, in eastern North America)?

Suppose there were some mammoths left in North America around 10,000 years ago (3,000 years after they disappeared from eastern North America). Somebody saw a mammoth say in midwestern North America, made an engraving and established a settlement in eastern North America. If that was true, the conclusion that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in eastern North America would be false.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi zebrowski,

As stated (by itself), Answer C does not need to be assumed by this argument. You would need to add the second part that nobody saw a mammoth somewhere else in North America and then traveled to the settlement. In other words, as long as something like that didn't happen, it would be completely fine for the argument that mammoths were still alive in a completely different part of North America.

If Answer C had stated, "No one saw a live mammoth outside of this eastern North America area and then travelled to the settlement," that would be one of the assumptions that the argument makes.

[hinarizvi]

Would you say the structure/reasoning of this argument fits into a common pattern of flawed assumptions? And would it be correct to abstract this argument in the following way: Here are 2 events that could be related, or not, (ancient humans in eastern NA hunted mammoths, and we found a fossil bone with a mammoth engraving in an ancient settlement in eastern NA) , so it must be that they are related (ancient humans lived in this settlement at the same time as the mammoths)?

[Dana D]

Hey hinarizvi,

Yes, I would say this is a common issue you will see on the LSAT. One distinction here is that this is not a flaw question, and the assumption is not flawed, but it does rely on the information in answer choice (A).

I think the stimulus can be better generalized as taking evidence that could support a conclusion as concrete proof that it does support that conclusion. Here, the evidence of the engraving only supports the author's conclusion that the settlement was occupied when mammals lived if the engraving occured at a specific time.

Hope that helps!