PrepTest 151, Section 1, Question 11

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Mortality patterns are useful here because wild and domesticated horse bones don't differ in shape. The writer explicitly contrasts horses with animals whose bones do differ. We aren't told that mortality analysis is always required to establish domestication, regardless of what other evidence is available.

• B

  Evidence from other sites could be useful, but the writer doesn't require corroboration at similar sites from the same era before an interpretation can be conclusive. Olsen uses background comparisons; that doesn't establish this general condition on archaeological conclusions.

• C

  The final sentence does describe carefully arranged bones. The unsupported addition is the conclusion about a high level of social organization, especially as a rule for any prehistoric culture. A pattern suggesting a relationship with horses doesn't by itself establish how the whole society was organized.

• D
  Correct

  The bones supply ages, sexes, and locations; information about herd management and horse behavior helps explain what those observations mean. For example, the excess of adult males matters because hunted family groups would ordinarily yield a lower proportion. That reasoning illustrates why interpreting remains often requires facts beyond the remains themselves.

• E

  The shape of bones helps frame a problem in identifying ancient domestication. Nothing connects those differences to why some modern animals are easier to domesticate than others. This changes the question being investigated.