PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 19
Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AIn close proximity(21 more words not shown)
- BIn the region(29 more words not shown)
- CSome of the(30 more words not shown)
- DThere is clear(24 more words not shown)
- EThe ability to(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A smoky fire doesn't tell us what the smoke was for. Perhaps it deterred predators rather than preserved meat. And perhaps the Neanderthals weren't choosing smoke at all: if there was no suitable wood around, they might have burned lichen and grass simply because those were the fuels they could get.
What we’re looking for
That matters because the archaeologist compares these fires with a better source of heat and light, then infers a different purpose. But a fire can be poor at producing heat and still be the best available way to stay warm. For a weakener, I'd look for another reason to burn these materials that doesn't involve smoking meat.
Working the answers
- A
Separate nearby fireplaces producing more heat than smoke could suggest different fires had different jobs. The smoky ones might have served some purpose other than heating, which fits the archaeologist's reasoning. This doesn't prove they smoked meat, but it doesn't supply the alternative explanation we need to weaken that claim.
- BCorrect
Better plant fuels for heat and light weren't available in the region at that time. Now burning lichen and grass needn't reflect a preference for smoke: those could have been the best plant materials available for making a heating or lighting fire. This doesn't prove the archaeologist wrong. It removes the basis for treating the fuel choice as good evidence of meat smoking.
- C
Bringing in lichen from a distance suggests people made an effort to obtain it. That doesn't establish what they used it for, and it doesn't show that better fuels were available. They could have fetched lichen to smoke meat, to make another use of smoke, or because their local fuel options were poor. C doesn't give us a reason to reject the archaeologist's proposed use.
- D
Some later Neanderthals used other methods of preserving meat. That doesn't tell us that the Neanderthals living 60,000 years ago didn't smoke it. Methods can change over time, and having another method doesn't even rule out also using smoke.
- E
This explains an advantage of preserving meat: it could help people through periods when hunting yielded little. That gives them a possible reason to smoke meat, rather than undermining the proposed explanation. Having a useful reason doesn't prove they actually did it, but it points in the wrong direction for a weakener.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.