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
The passage states that
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
Awas not deciphered by Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 18) DSB's book was written in 1992, but there's no indication that the marks weren't deciphered until then. In fact, her book brings up a new theory that other archaeologists didn't yet consider, but they did know that certain symbols meant "sheep" and "metal," suggesting they had been deciphered before the release of her book. -
Bused relatively few pictographic Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the details in the passage on the clay tablets found in Uruk and then find an answer matching those details
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Checking our notes, Uruk was mentioned right at the beginning of the passage. If we quickly check the details there, we can see that these clay tablets dated from ~3000 BC, used relatively few pictographs but numerous abstract symbols, and seemed to archaeologists to suddenly include abstract writing. There were also some examples about sheep and metal that we can check back to, but we don't want to be juggling too much info in our heads.
With these details in mind, let's head to the answer choices.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 4-5) Not much to say here—the passage explicitly states this to be the case. Since these tablets were an example that served as the basis for the phenomenon the passage is designed to explain, you should have noted it and then been able to find this information quickly!
Key Takeaway:
Check the takeaway from Question #16. There, we said that we would have focused on the correct answer not because it was reflected in the section of the passage that we thought the correct answer would come from but because it lined up with the main point. Here, we talked about a trap answer that was wrong despite lining up with the main point. Most of these tips are double-edged swords! They can help you find right answers, but they can also be used by the test writers to write tempting trap answers. That's why these rules of thumb are starting points—after you see an answer that aligns with a rule of thumb for a right answer, you still need to dig in and consider it fully. They're not rules of thumb that find right answers for you—they're rules of thumb that let you focus on things that are more likely to be right so you invest your time in the right places. -
Ceventually evolved into a Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-11) This is a very tempting answer! It lines up with the main point of the passage, after all. However, remember the timeline—these tablets are from ~3000 BC. That's the most recent time discussed in the passage, and it's the point when there was a "seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing"—in other words, these tablets have the developed system that serves as the endpoint of DSB's argument. In treating them as if they were the starting point from which writing developed, this answer goes wrong. -
Dtranscribed a language that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-15) The tokens were the ones found along the Jordan and nearby rivers, not the clay tablets at Uruk. -
Etranscribed a language that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 9-11) This answer aligns with the language in that it establishes a paradox—something that runs counter to expectations. However, the language spoken by the writers here wasn't the unexpected information but rather the sudden appearance and age of the abstract writing was.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.