Q10 - Archaeologist: The extensive network of ancient tracks

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The ancient tracks on Malta were probably made by the erosion caused by wheeled vehicles.
Evidence: Even though the tracks are uniform (as though they were manually cut, rather than eroded), the uniformity is probably an effect of uniform wheel diameter. They used these vehicles on flat routes, which then eroded from the wheels. Once it eroded to that depth, a vehicle couldn't drive on it anymore (its undercarriage would be scraping along the ground)

Answer Anticipation:
On 98% of ID the Conclusion questions, the conclusion is higher than most/all of the evidence. The conclusion is frequently the first sentence, cuz you can't get much higher than that.

People will likely be fished in by the "However" line, which is a subsidiary conclusion. The ":" is a punctuation mark that means, "Here is my supporting illustration". But the last two claims are there to support the first sentence.

The five claims go like this: Main Conclusion. Opposing Conclusion, Opposing Premise. Intermediate Conclusion: Premise.

All conclusions should be opinions ("most likely through erosion") and supported ("the observed uniform track depth can be explained by erosion").

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES. The hard part was finding the conclusion. Finding the answer is easy.

(B) Not the first sentence (an opposing conclusion)

(C) Not the first sentence (an opposing premise and conclusion)

(D) Not the first sentence (intermediate conclusion)

(E) Not the first sentence (premise)

Takeaway/Pattern: Both Q8 and Q10 were attempts by LSAT to catch students in a "but / yet / however" trap. It has now been well publicized that most ID the Conclusions historically have that structure, so be careful for LSAT doing a bait-and-switch to trap people who are forcing it to be that pattern.

#officialexplanation