LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Amber-fossilized tree resin sold as a gemstone…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: Amber pieces are more likely to be fake if they contain an ordinary looking insect.
REASONING: No evidence is given.
ANALYSIS: Sometimes, an argument will provide zero support for its position. In such cases, you should just focus on the facts in the conclusion. All we know is that the author thinks normal insects indicate fakeness.
Most of the wrong answers don’t even say what features real amber has as compared to a fake.
___________
- This doesn’t tell us anything about which amber pieces are more likely to be fake.
- So? It’s possible that “fake amber” is also made larger, in order to mimic real fossilized amber.
- This explain why forgers insert insects. But it doesn’t explain why normal seeming insects indicate fakeness.
- This indicates a difficulty in deciding which amber is fake. But it doesn’t tell us how to tell whether an amber is fake.
- CORRECT. This explains the situation. Real fossilized insects typically struggle. So that shows that normal seeming insects are more likely fake.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
Can i just say that i think this question is BS. When the stimulus introduces the concept of “Normal-appearing insects” it very much seemed to me to that the term “normal-appearing” was a reference where normal meant, like, insects you are familiar with from modern day, in other words meaning it’s not some kind of species of ancient insect that nobody is familiar with.
I did not read answer E to mean that the insects struggling and appearing grotesque would be the opposite of “normal-appearing”, and hence passed it over as an irrelevant answer. A modern day species of insect, whether struggling grotesquely or not, would still be a “normal-appearing” species of insect. I ended up picking A as the only answer that sounded even remotely plausible. This one really irks me.
This question is certainly not perfectly worded, but the LSAT often requires you to think about your interpretations of phrases. In this case, it’s important to remember that “normal-appearing” could also mean “appearing in a regular form”, whereas the naturally fossilized insects would appear in unnatural and potentially unrecognizable positions. In future, try to consider alternative interpretations to ensure that the LSAT hasn’t swindled you this way!
word.