PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 22
Archaeologist: After the last ice age, groups of(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe Clovis points(16 more words not shown)
- BThe Bering land(13 more words not shown)
- CClovis points were(10 more words not shown)
- DArchaeologists have discovered(12 more words not shown)
- ESome paleohuman groups(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Finding a spear point in Siberia tells us where it ended up. Does it tell us where someone first invented that kind of point?
The passage describes people crossing from Siberia into North America. But the land bridge could work in both directions. Suppose people crossed into North America, invented Clovis points there, and later carried some back to Siberia. The discovery in Siberia would then fit an invention in North America rather than rule it out.
What we’re looking for
We are asked to strengthen the archaeologist's argument, so I would look for evidence against that return-trip explanation. Perhaps something about the timing would make it unlikely that people crossed, developed the technology, and returned while the bridge was available. Dates for the artifacts might also help clarify the sequence. We need support for the claim about invention, not just another fact about where an artifact was found.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The oldest discovered examples are on the Siberian side. That makes it more plausible that the technology existed there before it appeared in North America, supporting the claim that it was not invented in North America.
This is evidence, not proof. Older North American examples could remain undiscovered. Still, given the finds we have, an earlier Siberian date strengthens the proposed order of origin and spread. We do not need the answer to eliminate every possible alternative.
- B
This resembles the idea of cutting off the return route, so it deserves a close look. But it dates the manufacture of the points found so far, not the invention of the technology. People might have invented the design earlier, carried the knowledge across while the bridge existed, and made the surviving examples later. The disappearance date would not tell us on which side the invention occurred.
There is also room for independent invention on both sides. That possibility would not establish that the design was never invented in North America. B does not require independent invention, but neither does it exclude it. In contrast, A gives evidence bearing on which location has the earlier known examples.
- C
Better hunting performance concerns how useful the points were, not where they were invented. A highly effective spear point could have originated on either side of the bridge.
- D
These are unspecified artifacts from a later period. They need not be Clovis points, and their existence does not establish the origin of that particular design. Continued activity in Siberia after some people left is compatible with either account of invention.
- E
This supports the objection we wanted to counter. Returning groups could have carried North American inventions back to Siberia. E does not prove they did carry Clovis points, but it makes the Siberian discovery less decisive as evidence against a North American origin. It works in the wrong direction for a strengthen question.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.