PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 13
In northern Europe, archaeologists have discovered 400,000-year-old sharpened(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ASharpened wooden poles(18 more words not shown)
- BHumanlike inhabitants of(18 more words not shown)
- CHomo sapiens evolved(12 more words not shown)
- DThe humanlike precursors(16 more words not shown)
- EPrehistoric Homo sapiens(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A sharpened pole could be a hunting weapon. But was it used that way?
The poles, cutting implements, and horse remains make hunting a plausible story. They don't establish it. Perhaps the poles were part of a shelter, or served some other purpose. Even finding tools near an animal's remains doesn't by itself tell us whether people killed the animal or used a carcass they found.
There's also a timing assumption: the author attributes these 400,000-year-old objects to precursors of Homo sapiens because Homo sapiens supposedly wasn't in Europe that early. If that timetable were wrong, we'd need to reconsider who left the objects. For now, the clearest gap is the leap from finding poles to concluding that the precursors hunted.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd love evidence that the poles were used for hunting. Another relevant fact could help too, even if it doesn't take the exact route I'm predicting. Keep the conclusion focused on the precursors' behavior, not merely on whether early humans used tools.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This doesn't directly tell us the poles were used for hunting, as I'd hoped. Instead, it removes several uses that wouldn't establish hunting: self-defense and cutting or transporting scavenged carcasses. The scavenging possibilities matter especially because the belief being challenged allows that the precursors scavenged. If the poles served those purposes, the discovery would fit that belief. Ruling those uses out makes hunting a stronger explanation. It doesn't eliminate every imaginable alternative, such as our shelter idea, but strengthening doesn't require proving the conclusion beyond all doubt.
- B
We already know that early inhabitants could use objects as tools. The question is what these tools were used for. Stones and sticks might help with gathering, preparing scavenged food, or building something. Evidence of tool use alone leaves the hunting question unanswered.
- C
Moving the origin of Homo sapiens farther back doesn't support the claim that its precursors hunted. If anything, it makes us question the chronological basis for assigning ancient tools to precursors rather than Homo sapiens. But even C doesn't establish who occupied this European site. It gives no affirmative evidence that the precursors used these poles to hunt.
- D
Different behavior in different ecosystems doesn't tell us that any of the groups hunted. Groups could differ in shelter, food gathering, or many other practices while all avoiding hunting. We need information about the particular behavior at issue, not variation in general.
- E
This concerns Homo sapiens who hunted, while the conclusion concerns their precursors. It also tells us that hunting can coexist with scavenging and gathering. That doesn't establish that the earlier group actually hunted. The disputed belief says they did only the latter activities, and E gives no evidence against that claim about them.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.