PrepTest 146
[lcid:3683] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4
Reading comp
Passage
. Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform . have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city . of
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science
Paragraph 1
Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues that tokens discovered in the Jordan river region represent an early predecessor of writing, eventually developing into an abstract system of marks and numerals before becoming signs for words.
Key Lines:
Lines 9-11 - A central paradox/phenomenon is introduced
Lines 11-15 - Another phenomenon is introduced
Lines 17-19 - A scientist's (DSB) explanation for the phenomena/paradox is introduced
Lines 28-33 - DSB's theory is restated/explored
Lines 38-45 - The progression that serves as DSB's core thesis is outlined
Line 45 - DSB's key example is introduced
Meta-Structure:
Phenomenon/Explanation - The passage introduces two different phenomena that the Author ends up showing how one scientist brought them together to form an explanation. The first phenomenon is the "seemingly sudden" development of abstract writing in Uruk (Lines 9-11). The second is the thousands of clay tokens found in the area around 1000 years before the abstract writing (Lines 11-15). Denise Schmant-Besserat ends up tracing the abstract language to these clay tokens, thus showing that abstract writing wasn't a seemingly sudden development but rather something that developed over 1000 years. And, in general, the Author's explanation for a central phenomenon (or two!) serves as the main point of the passage.
Paradox/Resolution - One of the phenomena to be described was a paradox—something "long puzzled" researchers (Lines 9-11). There's nothing additional to be said here other than that some answers might reflect the paradoxical nature of the question being explored. That said, the resolution of a paradox also tends to serve as the main point for a passage. Since the same theory both explains the phenomena and resolves the paradox, it's almost certainly the main point of the passage.
Progression/Development - DSB's theory is that clay tokens developed into language, suggesting that there were intervening steps. Paragraph 3 spends some time walking through those steps, using one specific example to highlight how it worked. We should expect some questions about this progression, and how the different "steps" relate to each other.
Timeline - The passage brings up several specific years and time periods (3000 BC, 3100 BC, 4000 BC; "few centuries"), so we want to have a clear idea of the progression here, as we noted in the last paragraph (Progression/Development). It's also important to note that higher numbers BC are farther back in time (i.e., 4000 BC is before 3100 BC is before 3000 BC).
Last Thoughts:
Note that we split up Paragraph 2 into two parts. This is because there are two "functions" of the paragraph with a nice transition. It wouldn't have been weird for a new paragraph to start with, "Noting that these," and since there were only 3 paragraphs to begin with, changing that up to have four "chunks" won't make it unmanageable while allowing us to better find information as needed. Specifically, the first half of this paragraph is where we'd go to look for information about the earliest tokens and clay envelopes, and the second half is where we'd look for anything about DSB's theory based on them.
Also, this passage seems like there are a lot of little details and differences between concepts that are going to be key (e.g., tokens and marks and numerals and abstract writing, nouns and signs and symbols). We need to be careful as we analyze the answer choices that we're not glossing over this terminology, as some answers might be wrong just because they use the wrong word.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Two phenomenon and a paradox are noted, and they're linked by an archaeologist
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Phenomenon 1/Paradox - 3000 BC: abstract writing seemingly popped up out of nowhere in Uruk
- Phenomenon 2 - 4000 BC: Thousands of clay tokens were made
- Archaeologists - Clay tokens ignored, or amulets, or game pieces
- Denise Schmandt-Besserat (DSB) - Clay tokens are precursors to written word
- Paragraph note
- More on the phenomenon
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- The tokens were found in tablet envelopes, some of which had impressions of the tokens inside
- Paragraph note
- DSB's explanation
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Inscriptions equate to later farm inscriptions
- Explanation - Envelopes tracked villagers' farm contributions
- After 4000 BC: Hundreds of new tokens = specialization of villagers
- Paragraph note
- A progression of developments is explained
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- 3100 BC - Tokens develop into marks on clay
- Few hundred years - Marks use numerals
- DSB - Over time, marks and numerals turn into writing
- DSB evidence/example - 2 jars of oil (development from 2 tokens to 2 marks to 3 signs)
Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues that tokens discovered in the Jordan river region represent an early predecessor of writing, eventually developing into an abstract system of marks and numerals before becoming signs for words.
Key Lines:
Lines 9-11 - A central paradox/phenomenon is introduced
Lines 11-15 - Another phenomenon is introduced
Lines 17-19 - A scientist's (DSB) explanation for the phenomena/paradox is introduced
Lines 28-33 - DSB's theory is restated/explored
Lines 38-45 - The progression that serves as DSB's core thesis is outlined
Line 45 - DSB's key example is introduced
Meta-Structure:
Phenomenon/Explanation - The passage introduces two different phenomena that the Author ends up showing how one scientist brought them together to form an explanation. The first phenomenon is the "seemingly sudden" development of abstract writing in Uruk (Lines 9-11). The second is the thousands of clay tokens found in the area around 1000 years before the abstract writing (Lines 11-15). Denise Schmant-Besserat ends up tracing the abstract language to these clay tokens, thus showing that abstract writing wasn't a seemingly sudden development but rather something that developed over 1000 years. And, in general, the Author's explanation for a central phenomenon (or two!) serves as the main point of the passage.
Paradox/Resolution - One of the phenomena to be described was a paradox—something "long puzzled" researchers (Lines 9-11). There's nothing additional to be said here other than that some answers might reflect the paradoxical nature of the question being explored. That said, the resolution of a paradox also tends to serve as the main point for a passage. Since the same theory both explains the phenomena and resolves the paradox, it's almost certainly the main point of the passage.
Progression/Development - DSB's theory is that clay tokens developed into language, suggesting that there were intervening steps. Paragraph 3 spends some time walking through those steps, using one specific example to highlight how it worked. We should expect some questions about this progression, and how the different "steps" relate to each other.
Timeline - The passage brings up several specific years and time periods (3000 BC, 3100 BC, 4000 BC; "few centuries"), so we want to have a clear idea of the progression here, as we noted in the last paragraph (Progression/Development). It's also important to note that higher numbers BC are farther back in time (i.e., 4000 BC is before 3100 BC is before 3000 BC).
Last Thoughts:
Note that we split up Paragraph 2 into two parts. This is because there are two "functions" of the paragraph with a nice transition. It wouldn't have been weird for a new paragraph to start with, "Noting that these," and since there were only 3 paragraphs to begin with, changing that up to have four "chunks" won't make it unmanageable while allowing us to better find information as needed. Specifically, the first half of this paragraph is where we'd go to look for information about the earliest tokens and clay envelopes, and the second half is where we'd look for anything about DSB's theory based on them.
Also, this passage seems like there are a lot of little details and differences between concepts that are going to be key (e.g., tokens and marks and numerals and abstract writing, nouns and signs and symbols). We need to be careful as we analyze the answer choices that we're not glossing over this terminology, as some answers might be wrong just because they use the wrong word.
Question prompt
With which one of
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
ASociety members' trade and Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 30-32) DSB's theory is limited to these tokens and envelopes being a part of a temple-based grain and livestock pool system. First, that's too limited to speak to trade and other economic activities generally. Second, the temple may not have been a strong centralized governmental authority—maybe people tithed to the temple while also paying taxes to a separate government. -
BReligious rituals were probably Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 30-32) DSB's theory involves the tokens being a part of a temple-based system. While this doesn't let us say anything about the relative importance of religion compared to other things (enough to eliminate it on its own), her theory does create a role for religion, so if anything this answer is cutting against the passage. And that's religion, not religious rituals. So this answer is out of scope and, even if we make some assumptions to get it in scope, cutting against the argument—several reasons to eliminate it! -
CSociety members regarded whatever Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 30-32) There's no specific indication that each envelope marked the contributions of a single villager, but that's certainly possible based on the language used in the passage. If that's the case, then individual contributions did matter, and thus this answer wouldn't make sense. But, again, that's relying on an assumption, so this answer is out of scope. -
DThe society eventually came Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review DSB's comments on the clay tokens and the society that used them, then find an answer that aligns with her overall argument and those details
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
First, as with all questions that ask about what a viewpoint agrees with, we should start by stating the overall view of that viewpoint. (We said "view" too many times in that sentenceÉ) Here, DSB's viewpoint is predominant in the passage, so it reflects the passage as a whole. And her viewpoint is that abstract writing developed over 1000 years from clay tokens to abstract symbols. So at a high level, DSB would agree that a society using clay tokens would see development towards writing with abstract symbols.
On a more detailed note, we know that Paragraph 2—specifically, the second half—is where DSB's theory regarding these early clay tokens/tablets was discussed. There, she says that the early inscriptions are traceable to later farm transcriptions (Lines 28-30), and that they were likely used to account for contributions to temple pools (Lines 30-32). She then talks more about the progression from them to an eventual abstract symbol system, which matches with the overall viewpoint we already discussed.
With this big-picture view and these details in mind, let's head to the answer choices.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 38-40) This answer lines up with the overall main point of DSB's argument—that the tokens developed into abstract symbols, aka abstract writing. It doesn't line up with the details from the section we noted, but since it lines up with that overall argument, we should check to see if there's backing for it. And there is—the passage notes that the system was replaced in about 3100 BC with a system of marks on clay tablets. The previous system had tokens in envelopes that were marked with their contents—which is redundant, as both the tokens and the marks conveyed the same information. It appears as if that progressed to a system without tokens and with only marks, backing up this answer.
Key Takeaway:
Notice how the correct answer here very much lines up with the overall main point of the passage. In the passage, the argument put forward is that abstract writing didn't suddenly pop up around 3000 BC but instead developed starting about 1000 years before that from the practice of using clay tablets to convey information. The correct answer here is the only one that reflects development. While that doesn't mean it's correct, it does mean that you should strongly consider that answer even if you're uncertain of the details. This is how the gurus spot correct answers that they don't initially remember from the passage—by noting that the answer does line up with the main point! -
EWithout a readily available Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 20-21) The tokens, as described, could easily have been made out of any other material—wood, for instance, or rock—and thus there's no indication that DSB believes clay to be an integral factor in their genesis.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Why D over A? 1 reply
Started by samxinghaoli
-
Please explain 1 reply
Started by rmkrutz@crimson.ua.edu