Essentially this is a strengthen question. We're supposed to strengthen the resource-procurement hypothesis. Which added fact would argues in favor of the resource-procurement model?
(A) CORRECT. The resource-procurement model propsoess that woodland clearings were conducted for food procurement (line 1-4), therefore if we find evidence of food processing, that this hypothesis is supported.
(B) Incorrect. Out of scope. The population of interesting is the Mesolithic group who lived 7000-12000 years ago. Nothing about premodern population is relevant here.
(C) Incorrect. Even if clearings is an effective means of attracting grazing animals, it would not lead us to conclude that the Mesolithic people did it for this purpose.
(D) Incorrect. Nothing here to shed light on the purpose of man-made clearings by the Mesolithic people.
(E) Incorrect. Sort of similar as D, it reveals nothing about the Mesolithic people's intention.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q20
Cool take. I agree that you could essentially think, "Which of these would support the resource-procurement model".
The way I'd see it is
TYPE: inference
KEYWORDS: author more likely to endorse resource-procurement if
TASK: go find the author's complaints about the resource-procurement model and then look for an answer that remedies one of those complaints.
SEARCH FOR PROOF WINDOW: Resource-procurement was P1 ... in line 8-9, the author announces his displeasure with the evidence for it, so the proof window would be the detail on line 10-14 and the FURTHERMORE detail from 14-17.
AUTHOR'S COMPLAINTS:
- no secure link between clearings and human artifacts
- not much evidence that humans consumed animals there or near there
ANTICIPATED ANSWER:
- Here IS a clear link between clearing and human artifacts
or
- Here IS some evidence that humans consumed animals at a clearing or near there
ANSWERS:
(A) Looks good. I'd feel fine picking it without reading others if I were pressed for time.
Scanning the rest, but none of them are anywhere close to saying either of the two possible answers.
The way I'd see it is
TYPE: inference
KEYWORDS: author more likely to endorse resource-procurement if
TASK: go find the author's complaints about the resource-procurement model and then look for an answer that remedies one of those complaints.
SEARCH FOR PROOF WINDOW: Resource-procurement was P1 ... in line 8-9, the author announces his displeasure with the evidence for it, so the proof window would be the detail on line 10-14 and the FURTHERMORE detail from 14-17.
AUTHOR'S COMPLAINTS:
- no secure link between clearings and human artifacts
- not much evidence that humans consumed animals there or near there
ANTICIPATED ANSWER:
- Here IS a clear link between clearing and human artifacts
or
- Here IS some evidence that humans consumed animals at a clearing or near there
ANSWERS:
(A) Looks good. I'd feel fine picking it without reading others if I were pressed for time.
Scanning the rest, but none of them are anywhere close to saying either of the two possible answers.
2 posts Page 1 of 1