PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 8
Anthropologist: For early humans who moved from a(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(32 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(9 more words not shown)
- BIt is background(9 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(7 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(7 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Farming sounds as though it could make food more dependable. So calling the transition “traumatic” makes me pause. Why would settling down to grow food necessarily be worse than finding it in the wild?
The anthropologist gives an answer: more disease and injury, plus a less varied diet missing important nutrients. We might find those claims surprising, but they are the evidence this argument asks us to accept. They explain why the author calls the transition traumatic.
Then the argument moves forward. If the change had those costs, why did people make it? The author thinks benefits of settled life likely motivated them. Specialized roles could let some people build houses or work with metal while others produced food, creating opportunities to accumulate wealth. That is an example of the proposed attraction, not proof that farming had no other benefits.
What we’re looking for
The question asks about the role of the “traumatic” claim. Trace it in both directions: the health and diet problems support it, and it helps support the later explanation of why people changed their way of life anyway. It's a stepping-stone in the reasoning, not just the starting information or the final destination.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The claim is used as a premise for the conclusion about people's motivation. But it also receives support: the disease, injury, and dietary problems explain why the transition would have been traumatic. A statement can be supported by one part of an argument and then help support another part. This answer captures both jobs.
- B
This isn't idle background. Remove the difficulty of the transition and we lose the author's reason for looking to benefits that might have made the change worthwhile. The claim has a direct role in the explanation that follows.
- C
It is a premise, but the answer stops too soon. The very next sentence supplies support for it. More disease and injury and a poorer diet are offered as reasons to believe the transition was traumatic. Saying no support is offered ignores that sentence.
- D
This is a conclusion along the way, but not the conclusion of the argument as a whole. The author uses it to reach the further claim that the groups were likely motivated by benefits of settled agricultural life.
- E
The author doesn't try to show the transition wasn't traumatic. The costs support that description, and the benefits help explain why people accepted the change despite those costs. Explaining why someone undertook a difficult transition isn't the same as denying that it was difficult.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.