PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 5
Archaeologist: The earliest evidence of controlled fire use(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe humans who(11 more words not shown)
- BThe climate in(11 more words not shown)
- CPrior to 400,000(10 more words not shown)
- DHumans would not(15 more words not shown)
- EThere were humans(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Were humans in Europe before 400,000 years ago? Without that information, why would this fire evidence challenge the claim that humans needed fire to move there?
Keep one limit on the evidence in mind: the earliest evidence we've found isn't necessarily the first use of fire. People might have controlled fire earlier without leaving evidence we have discovered. The archaeologist is raising doubt about a proposed prerequisite, not proving that nobody used fire before that date.
What we’re looking for
Still, the argument needs a timing contrast. If humans first arrived 400,000 years ago or later, the known fire use could fit perfectly well with their needing fire to live there. If humans were already there 500,000 years ago, however, their presence would predate the earliest evidence cited. That would at least give the archaeologist a reason to question the usual story. For the required assumption, I'd look for those earlier inhabitants.
Working the answers
- A
They could have used fire both for heat and for cooking. The argument doesn't need to exclude either use. It concerns when people were living in Europe relative to the earliest evidence of controlled fire, not whether their uses of fire were limited to heating.
- B
The argument doesn't require Europe's climate then to have been colder than its climate today. The proposed explanation invokes cold European winters, but that doesn't establish a comparison between two historical periods. We still need the timing of human habitation.
- C
Taking advantage of an existing natural fire isn't necessarily mastering fire. More importantly, the argument doesn't need this practice to have occurred. It needs humans to have been present early enough for the date of controlled-fire evidence to challenge the claimed prerequisite. C neither states that timing in Europe nor supplies a required reason for it.
- D
This concerns why humans would have mastered fire: whether the need for warmth was essential to that development. The archaeologist's question runs the other way: was mastery of fire essential to moving into Europe? A claim about what motivated fire mastery doesn't give us the missing date of human presence.
- ECorrect
Humans inhabited Europe before 400,000 years ago. Now we have the comparison the argument needs: humans were there earlier than the earliest evidence of controlled fire use. That makes the evidence relevant to questioning whether they had to master fire before arriving.
This still isn't proof that those earlier humans lacked fire. Evidence could be missing, as we noticed. But without earlier inhabitants, the date cited wouldn't even put pressure on the proposed order of events. E supplies that essential part of the archaeologist's reasoning.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.