LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most helps explain why the Norse settlements in Greenland disappeared while the Inuit settlements survived? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Paradox question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage and break it down into simpler terms. The passage tells us that from the tenth century until around the year 1500, Norse settlers lived in Greenland. During that time, average yearly temperatures dropped slightly worldwide. Some people believe that this temperature drop caused the Norse settlements to disappear because Greenland became too cold for human habitation. However, the passage argues that this explanation cannot be correct because Inuit settlers from North America, who were also living in Greenland during the same time, continued to thrive long after 1500.

To better understand this, imagine two different types of plants growing in the same garden. If the temperature drops and one type of plant dies off while the other continues to grow, it's likely that there's another factor at play besides just the temperature drop.

Now that we have a clearer understanding of the passage, let's identify the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Paradox question, which means we're looking for an answer choice that helps explain the apparent contradiction or discrepancy in the passage.

Let's examine each answer choice:

a) The drop in average yearly temperature was smaller in Greenland than it was in the world as a whole.

This answer choice doesn't help explain why the Norse settlements disappeared while the Inuit settlements survived. If anything, it suggests that the temperature drop shouldn't have had a significant impact on either group. Therefore, this is not the correct answer.

b) The Norse settlers' diet, unlike that of the Inuit, was based primarily on livestock and crops that were unable to survive the temperature drop.

This answer choice provides a plausible explanation for the paradox. If the Norse settlers relied on livestock and crops that couldn't survive the temperature drop, they would have struggled to find enough food, which could have led to the disappearance of their settlements. In contrast, the Inuit settlers may have had a different diet that was more adaptable to the changing temperatures, allowing them to continue thriving. This is the correct answer.

c) There were settlements in North America during the fifteenth century that were most likely founded by Norse settlers who had come from Greenland.

While this answer choice suggests that some Norse settlers may have left Greenland, it doesn't explain why the Norse settlements disappeared while the Inuit settlements survived in Greenland. Thus, this answer choice doesn't resolve the paradox.

d) The Inuit and the Norse settlements were typically established in coastal areas.

This answer choice provides information about the location of the settlements but doesn't explain why the Norse settlements disappeared while the Inuit settlements survived. The fact that both groups lived in coastal areas doesn't help us understand the paradox.

e) The Norse community in Norway continued to thrive long after 1500.

This answer choice tells us about the Norse community in Norway, but it doesn't help explain the paradox concerning the Norse settlements in Greenland and the Inuit settlements. We need an answer that addresses the discrepancy between the two groups in Greenland specifically.

In conclusion, the correct answer is B, as it provides a plausible explanation for the paradox by suggesting that the Norse settlers' diet, which relied on livestock and crops that couldn't survive the temperature drop, may have contributed to the disappearance of their settlements in Greenland, while the Inuit settlers had a different diet that allowed them to continue thriving.