#7- Amber—fossilized tree resin sold as a gemstone

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[maximbasu]

Hi,

I chose A while the correct answer is E.

The stimulus states:
1. Amber with fossilized life in it is more valuable than just amber (how cool is that?)
2. Forgers can trick you + sell you fakes
3. C: "normal-appearing insects" in amber--more likely to be a fake

Task: Strengthen

"Normal-appearing insects" did not appear anywhere in the stimulus but the conclusion, so I should tie that into forgers tricking people.

A seemed to say that since vendors are careless + will take anything (even stuff from the black market) to make a profit, their irresponsible practice makes it more likely that "normal-appearing insects" will be fakes.
Is A wrong because it doesn't mention "normal-appearing insects" directly?

I eliminated E because I thought who cares about insects struggling (no offence to the insects).
Is E correct because if real insects look terrible fossilized, "normal-appearing ones" would be suspect because they didn't struggle? Is that it?! I just had a eureka moment! Good job Powerscore, good job, no wonder your books state that you are the "Leader in LSAT preparation." High five Dave Killoran.

MB

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi MB,

You got it! Answer choice (E) is correct precisely because if the fossilized life forms in real amber look awkward or grotesque, then pieces that contain normal-appearing insects are even MORE likely to be fake.

I must caution you against approaching these questions by virtue of keyword-matching. For instance, there is no need to "tie" the notion of "normal-appearing" insects in the conclusion to the rest of the argument - the premises already establish that foragers can trick you by inserting normal-appearing insects into the amber, which is why the appearance of such insects should be a cause for concern. The issue with the conclusion is one involving probability: how do we know for sure that amber is more likely to be fake if it contains normal-appearing insects?

Let's try a little hypothetical: What if all amber - fake or not - contained normal-appearing insects? After all, we know that valuable amber contains fossilized life forms (first sentence). What if 99% of all amber sold is valuable and real, all of it containing normal appearing insects? Then, even if every piece of fake amber contains a similar insect, that would only account for 1% of all the amber being sold. So, if you received a piece containing normal-appearing insects, is that piece more likely to be fake than real? Of course it's probably real Do you see the flaw in the argument?

If answer choice (E) is true, the probabilistic error in reasoning is swiftly removed. We now know that real amber usually contains not normal appearing insects, but rather insects that look tortured and awkward. So, if you come across a piece of amber whose insect looks like it passed away peacefully in its sleep, there is probably something fishy going on!

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

[LSAT1416]

I would like some clarification on the use of the words normal-appearing in the stimulus. The first use, when tied with the word small seems to imply that it is a bug from our time (ie a housefly), and for that reason I created a prephrase in the order of: if the bug in the resin doesn't appear historic (looks like a bug we could see today), it is likely fake.

I don't understand how the idea that normal looking is referential to their body shape in this passage, and for that reason E seems incorrect to me

[James Finch]

Hi LSAT 1416,

The very broad, vague definition of "normal-appearing" is what makes this question particularly tricky: in order to strengthen the conclusion an insect's appearance being "normal" would make a piece of amber more likely to be a fake than otherwise, we have to know what "not normal-appearing" could mean. As the stimulus itself gives us no guidance, the correct answer will have to do that, which is what (E) gives us ("awkward or grotesque positions").

Your prephrase does correctly identify the element we need to strengthen the stimulus ("normal-appearing" vs. "not normal-appearing"), but when none of the answer choices deal with the time element--ancient vs. modern species-- that the prephrase expected, then we have to be flexible and think about what else could conceivably give us a definition of "not normal-appearing." Only answer choice (E) does this, by making it the pose that determines whether the insect appears "normal" or not.

[mo_wan]

Just had a question about the breakdown of the stimulus.

Conclusion: Pieces of gemstone that have insects in it are more likely to be fake vs the ones that don’t
Reasoning: Forgers can create fake gemstones and to improve its value they add insects into it.
Flaw: 1) Maybe its very expensive to create these fake insects 2) Before being sold its analyzed by someone 3) Consumers are worried about being sold fake ones, so they buy the amber without insects instead and so the forgers make those ones instead
a)Okay, but maybe the consumers can tell if its fake or not
b) Fakes could also be made larger
c) Premise Booster – already implies that inserting insects add value to it, doesn’t explain why normal insects = fake
d) If its very hard to tell if its fake both from the consumers and the street vendors, then they are more likely to create the ones that are fake cause they have more value
e) Who cares?

This was my understanding of it, can you shed some light where I went wrong

[Brook Miscoski]

Mo_wan,

Please read the concluding sentence of the stimulus carefully, as that is primarily where you "went wrong."

The conclusion is that amber is more likely to be fake if it contains a normal-appearing insect than if it does not contain a normal-appearing insect. Those bolded descriptors are absolutely critical, as is the scope--the stimulus only cares whether something is more likely to be fake.

(A) Sheds no light on what is fake.
(B) Sheds no light on what is fake.
(C) Sheds no light on what is fake.
(D) Sheds no light on what is fake.
(E) Winner! True amber with an insect should contain a grotesque-appearing insect, not a normal-appearing insect.

[andrewb22]

I got this one correct, but I'm curious what a strong pre-phrase would be. Mine was "something that increases the probability of amber with normal insects being fake." Is it beneficial to be more or less vague with pre-phrases on strengthen/weaken questions?

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Andrew!

That's a great pre-phrase for this question! If you wanted to word your pre-phrase in a way you would expect it to appear in an answer choice, you could say:

Insects in real amber usually do not appear normal.

This would mean that if a piece of amber has normal-looking insects, it probably isn't real amber (which is exactly what your version of the pre-phrase tells you to look for in an answer choice). You want to keep your pre-phrase vague enough to incorporate slight variations in answer choices, but not so vague that it does not guide you to the correct answer. The pre-phrase you have written for this question is just the right amount of vagueness needed - nice work!

[andrewb22]

Thanks again for the response, Poonam. Good to know I'm on the right track with this pre-phrase.