PrepTest 147

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Common theory (Mesolithic humans cleared woods to hunt) and the author's rebuttal (circumstantial evidence)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Common theory:
    • Early humans used clearings for food/economic uses, either by making them or using found ones (first and second sentences)
  • Author's view:
    • The common theory is unlikely, as its supporting evidence is "at best circumstantial" (third sentence)
  • List of reasons evidence is circumstantial, according to the author:
    • Clearings and tools are not securely linked (fourth sentence)
    • No artifacts found suggest these humans used animals (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "at best circumstantial" (third sentence); "never securely linked" (fourth sentence); "generally lacking" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author previewing support for new theory (the common theory relies on ethnographic evidence, but ethnographic evidence can also support a different view)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between common theory and new theory's ethnographic evidence, according to the author:
    • The common theory's support comes from the realization that premodern humans used fire to make grazing areas, but other ethnographic evidence could also support the view that the clearings were used for noneconomic purposes (first and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "may suggest" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's support (Tuan's argument that human behavior has been driven by fear of wilderness)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Yi-Fu Tuan's view:
    • Until recently, humans have been afraid of the wilderness (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Applying this to Mesolithic humans, we can form a new theory for use of woodland clearings (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "might be tempted" (second sentence); "it is clear" (second sentence); "may change" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's support (recent awareness of the importance of woodland paths for early humans) and hypothesis (Mesolithic humans may have created paths due to fear of wilderness)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's hypothesis:
    • Fear of woodlands motivated the creation of woodland paths in the Mesolithic era (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "propose" (last sentence); "the primary motivators in establishing paths may have been" (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Implications of the author's hypothesis
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of implications of the author's hypothesis:
    • Mesolithic humans created paths, which became permanent fixtures (second sentence)
    • The paths became the areas in which human activity occurred, and the areas outside the paths became "the wilderness" for Mesolithic humans (third and fourth sentences)
    • So, these clearings can be considered "social phenomena," as humans used the paths and the paths became wider (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "may be" (first sentence); "allows us to legitimately consider" (fourth sentence); "may lead us" (last sentence); "purely social phenomena" (last sentence)

Main Point: While it's generally accepted that Mesolithic humans used woodland clearings for food/economic purposes, recent evidence suggests that these clearings may have been created out of fear of the wilderness and developed for social reasons.

Lines 1-4; Line 8 - The common theory is described

Lines 9-10 - Author's initial rebuttal

Lines 28-30 - Viewpoint that supports an alternative hypothesis

Lines 39-41 - Author's evidence for an alternative hypothesis

Lines 41-45 - Author's alternative hypothesis

Proposing a Hypothesis: This is one of those passages that could be described by any number of Meta-Structures. Phenomenon/Explanation, Old Approach/New Approach, Correcting the Record, Rebutting Critics ... all of these could describe this passage's structure. If you went with any of these Meta-Structures, you would probably reach similar conclusions about this passage's main point and purpose.

Ultimately, we think Proposing a Hypothesis is the best fit for this passage. It doesn't hurt that the author calls their new explanation of the Mesolithic woodland clearings a "hypothesis" (Line 46). Moreover, we should note how circumspect the author's language is — "may change" (Line 35), "propose" (Line 41); "may have been" (Lines 42-43), "may be" (Line 46); "allows us to legitimately consider" (Line 51); "may force us" (Line 53); "may lead us" (Line 54). This wishy-washy language is a hallmark of Proposing a Hypothesis passages. The author isn't certain that their explanation is correct. Instead, the author proposes a new explanation they think might be better supported by the evidence.

In a Proposing a Hypothesis passage, the hypothesis is generally the main point. We'll have to also make sure the cautious language is part of the main point, though. So, we identified the main point as: "While it's generally accepted that Mesolithic humans used woodland clearings for food/economic purposes, recent evidence suggests that these clearings may have been created out of fear of the wilderness and developed for social reasons."

This passage is difficult because it throws a lot of information around and seems a bit convoluted. However, it actually has a well-defined structure — you just need to find how the ideas connect to each other! This is difficult because ideas are brought up in one paragraph but only referenced several paragraphs later.

However, remembering the Meta-Structure can help here, as we know that the passage is, overall, designed to advance an alternative hypothesis to a commonly accepted theory. This hypothesis is referenced at the beginning of Paragraph 2, but we don't get the alternative hypothesis for the clearings until much later, in Paragraph 4.

In the interim, we get ideas that build on each other, but not explicitly. Paragraph 2 also talks about ethnographic information supporting an alternative theory. That ethnographic information is raised in Paragraph 3 without being explicitly referred to as such. And the author then pivots to a new topic in Paragraph 4 before circling back and connecting Paragraph 3's ethnographic information to it.

In short, the passage previews later claims and builds off of itself, but in an unclear manner. Remember, though, that the LSAT isn't going to throw a disjointed passage at you, as it can't really ask questions about something that doesn't make much sense. So when it feels disjointed, dig in to see how the ideas are connected — you're probably missing some implicit connections.