PT 34, Section 3, LR, #6, Weaken Question Forum

[secretad]

I got a 171 on this test, but I missed #1 and 2 in the first LR section, and this one on the second LR section. So frustrating.

Anyway, #6 from Section 3.

I immediately eliminated A because the stimulus says that it is impossible to collect samples without removing limestone with the paint. So it does not matter that there are several different techniques for collecting the samples.

I also, ironically, immediately eliminated choice B, which is the right answer. I did that because the stimulus, again, says it is impossible to collect the samples without removing limestone with the paint. This answer really bothers me. That's great that there are laboratory procedures that exist that can remove all limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone. In fact, I basically assumed that it was true. I figured these archaeologists would take these paintings to the lab and that there would be techniques used to remove the limestone from the paint, but this is the conundrum in the stimulus.

You have to remove the paint with the limestone.

I felt E was a superior answer because this way, you could take limestone that has no paintings on it and take one that does. Go ahead and figure out the amount of carbon in the limestone without the paintings, then you can apply that proportion to the second rock and there is the age.

Seems like a tough question.

[DaisyLafayette]

would you mind posting the question?

I have done the same thing on LR practice tests- miss only number 1 or 1 and maybe one other. really sucks to correct it and start off seeing that!

[secretad]

.

[theaether]

I think the problem here might be between 1) during the collection of samples, and 2) afterwards. While collecting, it is impossible to separate pigments and limestone. The stimulus says this. But it leaves the gap of after collection of the samples, is it still impossible to separate the two? Choice B exploits this gap in the argument by saying even if we couldn't do it while collecting samples, we can do it at some other time; e.g. afterwards, in the lab.

[flounder]

The point of the question is that, using normal techniques you can not take a paint sample without geting limestone. Also it states that you can not age vegetable matter with limestone on it.

Can not tell aged of veg matter with limestone
Can not get veggie matter without limestone.

However, you weaken this statement if you make an additional statement that says you can get rid of the limestone that was taken, before you test it. It is the process in the middle of those two things, that if possible, weaken the argument.

That is probably a piss poor discription.

[DaisyLafayette]

Okay what is the conundrum you see that you have to remove the paint wtih the limestone?

This refers to the taking it from the original location it is found back to the lab, not what takes place once in the lab.

So you have a painting- with the vegetable matter that lets you tell age- on top of limestone- with carbon so will make it impossible to find age. You get it to the lab, and use a technique that lets you just completely separate the two, picking the picture and the vegetable matter up from the other substance with carbon. Then able to date.

If you could not separate the two, then the argument would be valid, but using standard techniques it's possible.

I can see why E seems tempting but even if you figure out the proportion of carbon to other elements to limestone with or without the painting it does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that there would be some way to factor out the amount of carbon and get the age. The fact that any proportion of carbon exists will make it impossible to date the painting. Basically the proportion is irrelevant in figuring it out.

hope that helps

[DaisyLafayette]

my second line looks the reverse of what i mean.- the you are unable to date/separate them takes place at the original.- the answer choice refers to the lab

[secretad]

Okay what is the conundrum you see that you have to remove the paint wtih the limestone?

This refers to the taking it from the original location it is found back to the lab, not what takes place once in the lab.

So you have a painting- with the vegetable matter that lets you tell age- on top of limestone- with carbon so will make it impossible to find age. You get it to the lab, and use a technique that lets you just completely separate the two, picking the picture and the vegetable matter up from the other substance with carbon. Then able to date.

If you could not separate the two, then the argument would be valid, but using standard techniques it's possible.

I can see why E seems tempting but even if you figure out the proportion of carbon to other elements to limestone with or without the painting it does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that there would be some way to factor out the amount of carbon and get the age. The fact that any proportion of carbon exists will make it impossible to date the painting. Basically the proportion is irrelevant in figuring it out.

hope that helps

How are you able to get it to the lab? It says in the stimulus that it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone.

And also, I do not understand your line of thinking that you could essentially separate the two, the two being the picture and limestone. If these paintings are done on rocks, you cannot separate the two?

[theaether]

How are you able to get it to the lab? It says in the stimulus that it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone.

Be careful, it says it is impossible to collect samples without removing limestone WITH the paint. That is, you cannot collect JUST the paint. It must come in a package deal with the limestone.

But, if at the lab, you can get rid of the limestone, that would debunk the original argument.

[nodrog]

Be careful, it says it is impossible to collect samples without removing limestone WITH the paint. That is, you cannot collect JUST the paint. It must come in a package deal with the limestone.

But, if at the lab, you can get rid of the limestone, that would debunk the original argument.

Correct- You could take the Limestone with the painting on it to the lab, then use the laboratory procedures to remove the limestone from the paint-- thus removing the carbon too. Then you could use standard archaeological techniques to determine the age of the painting.

[secretad]

And that is how I missed the question. Thanks so much guys.