PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 11
There is evidence that a certain ancient society(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMany ancient cultures(13 more words not shown)
- BHunter-gatherer societies used(9 more words not shown)
- CMany plants and(23 more words not shown)
- DHunter-gatherer societies are(14 more words not shown)
- EFew early societies(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe they farmed somewhere else.
Burned land could have been cleared for planting. But it could have been burned for another reason, such as moving animals. The author points out that there's little evidence of cultivation after these fires, then concludes that the society was probably still made up of hunters and gatherers.
That conclusion reaches beyond this particular land. Even if we had established that the burned areas weren't farmed, the people could have grown crops in other fields. And “little evidence” of cultivation isn't the same as proof that none occurred.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the argument. My first thought is a connection between this land and the society's farming: if these people had practiced agriculture, they would have used the burned ground for it. That would make the missing signs of cultivation more meaningful. Let's see whether an answer supplies that connection or another reason to favor the hunter-gatherer explanation.
Working the answers
- A
Other cultures practiced agriculture before using fire to clear land. That doesn't support the conclusion that this society was still a hunter-gatherer society. If anything, it reminds us that farming needn't involve the land-clearing fires we're examining. Agriculture could have existed independently of them.
- B
Cooking and keeping warm show that hunter-gatherers used fire, but they don't explain burning large areas of land. A cooking fire is a different use at a different scale. We need something that makes this particular evidence fit the hunter-gatherer account better.
- C
This describes how certain plants release inedible seeds. It doesn't tell us why the people burned the land or whether they practiced agriculture. A fact about what fire does to plants isn't enough to establish the society's way of life.
- DCorrect
This takes a different route from my initial prediction. It gives hunter-gatherers a reason to burn large areas: moving animal populations. Those fires could be part of managing where animals go, rather than clearing fields for crops.
D doesn't establish that this society actually used fire that way. But it makes the burned-land evidence easier to reconcile with continued hunting and gathering, especially when little cultivation evidence follows the fires. That supports the author's explanation without proving it.
- E
Not knowing that fire can enrich soil doesn't tell us whether a society farmed. People could burn ground simply to remove trees and other growth, without understanding any soil benefit. We also aren't told what this particular society knew. E leaves both the purpose of the fires and the broader farming question unresolved.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.