PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 18
Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since(61 more words not shown)
The claim that humans are(20 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(28 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(17 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(15 more words not shown)
- DIt is an(22 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The nutritionist says our biology has changed very little since agriculture developed, so we are still adapted to a diet of wild foods. I can follow that proposed connection. But being adapted to a diet does not immediately establish that every move toward that diet makes us healthier.
Perhaps early humans ate what was available, rather than an ideal selection of foods. A mixture of wild foods and some newer source of a needed nutrient could conceivably be better than either extreme. That is a possibility to consider, not a claim about which diet people should follow.
I would also ordinarily wonder whether changes in activity, such as spending more time sitting, could help explain differences in health. Here, though, the passage expressly gives us the claim that straying from the wild-food diet has often resulted in illness. Accepting those cases still does not establish that every departure is harmful or that more wild food is always better.
The question is about the role of the claim that we remain biologically adapted to wild foods. Start with the final conclusion: the more wild food in our diet, the healthier we will be. The adaptation claim helps support that. But it also has support of its own: humans have evolved very little since agriculture developed.
What we’re looking for
A claim that both receives support and helps support the main point is an intermediate conclusion. That is the description we need, whether or not we accept the nutritionist's final recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
It is a conclusion, but A gets its support wrong. The nutritionist introduces the adaptation claim with the reason that humans have evolved very little since agriculture developed. The later claim about illness is not the only support offered for it. The word “only” makes A incompatible with the opening explanation.
- B
The adaptation claim does support the main conclusion, but it is not left unjustified. The first part of the first sentence offers a reason for believing it. B captures one role and misses the other.
- C
The nutritionist does not offer the final recommendation as an explanation of why humans remain adapted to wild foods. The adaptation claim helps support the final judgment about health. C describes a different relationship, with the main conclusion explaining the targeted statement.
- DCorrect
The claim about limited evolution supports the conclusion that humans remain adapted to wild foods. That conclusion then serves, alongside the claim about illness, as support for the final conclusion that more wild foods will make us healthier. D captures both jobs: the statement is supported, and it in turn supports something further.
- E
This puts the support in the wrong direction. The argument says little evolution is a reason to think we remain adapted to the diet. It does not use our adaptation to establish that little evolution has occurred. The same two claims are present, but E reverses their roles.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.