PrepTest 151, Section 1, Question 14

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  Comparing butchered and untouched horse bones would provide evidence about which remains show food processing. That could help assess whether meat use adequately explains the finds or whether other uses deserve more consideration. It wouldn't settle the question by itself: a horse could be ridden and later butchered, and untouched bones wouldn't prove that a horse was a mount. But of these choices, it most directly bears on the use of the horses Olsen is studying.

• B

  A count of sheep and goats relative to horses tells us about the mix of animal remains. Whether horses are common or rare, that ratio doesn't tell us whether people hunted, kept, or rode them.

• C

  The number of ancient hunting tribes compared with modern hunting tribes doesn't establish what the Botai did with their horses. A change in the number of tribes isn't evidence of these animals' particular use.

• D

  Mortality patterns in other species could provide useful background—goats already serve that purpose. But another species' pattern doesn't directly tell us how these horses were used. The horse-specific evidence in A is more relevant to the particular hypothesis being evaluated.

• E

  One horse for many people, or many horses for relatively few people, could still leave the use of those horses unresolved. The ratio at ceremonial sites doesn't by itself distinguish riding from meat use. The question isn't simply how numerous or prominent the horses were.