PrepTest 151

[lcid:3700] Prep Test 151 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 7-14  .       Through years of excavations and careful analysis  . of her finds around Krasnyi Yar in Kazakhstan,  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Olsen: Horse bones among Botai dwellings may be evidence of domestication
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Olson view:
      • Horse bones found in dwellings of the Botai people may be evidence of the earliest known domestication of horses (first and second sentences)
      • This conclusion is based on the horses' sex and age at death rather than morphological analysis (last sentence)
    • Comparison:
      • Wild and domesticated horses have the same bone structure, which is not true for dogs or sheep (third sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "careful analysis" (first sentence); "may be evidence" (first sentence); "momentous development in human history" (first sentence); "not immediately evidence" (third sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Olsen's support: Preponderance of male horses
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to Olsen's view:
      • Domesticated animals kept for meat or milk usually are predominantly female, but the Botai horses are mostly males (first and second sentences).
      • If you were to hunt most species, you'd target males; but for horses, you'd target families (which stick together, unlike "bachelor" pods) that are predominantly female (fourth through sixth sentences)
      • In a domesticated herd of goats, you would cull (slaughter) many young males; in the Botai remains, male horses were not culled (eighth sentence)
    • Olsen's view:
      • Since there's a high percentage of male horses, the Botai people probably domesticated horses for riding (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Olsen's support: Horse skeletons were found intact
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Olsen's view:
      • Because many skeletons were fully intact, it stands to reason that at least some of the horses were domesticated (first through third sentences)
      • Skeletons were also carefully arranged near human remains, which suggests a relationship that goes beyond hunting (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "unreasonable to suppose" (second sentence); "further suggests" (last sentence)

Main Point: Olsen's analysis of the horse bones provides evidence that the Botai may be the first known humans to domesticate and ride horses.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Olsen's hypothesis

P2, S2 - Support for Olsen's hypothesis

P3, S3-4 - More support for Olsen's hypothesis

Meta-Structure?

Proposing a Hypothesis: We think this passage best fits the Proposing a Hypothesis Meta-Structure*. In such a passage, the author usually offers an unverified explanation of a phenomenon or describes another person's unverified explanation.

That's what happens in this passage, mostly. The author spends much of the passage describing the hypothesis Olsen makes based on her discovery and analysis of horse remains near Botai dwellings. This passage doesn't fit the Proposing a Hypothesis model perfectly, as neither the author nor Olsen posits questions that need to be addressed before the explanation can be accepted or rejected. Still, Olsen's conclusion about the Botai's domestication of horses is not yet accepted, so we think the Proposing a Hypothesis Meta-Structure is the closest fit for this passage.

The main point in a Proposing a Hypothesis passage is the hypothesis and any outstanding questions must be addressed. We've summarized this hypothesis for Olsen and the author: "Olsen's analysis of the horse bones provides evidence that the Botai may be the first known humans to domesticate and ride horses."

*Some test-takers may come to different conclusions about which Meta-Structure this passage uses. Some may view this as a Phenomenon/Explanation or Importance of Subject passage. Either designation would probably result in the same understanding of the passage's structure and main point. Remember, the Meta-Structures are tools that help us think about these issues, and we don't have to agree on the Meta-Structure a passage uses to gain a fruitful understanding of the passage. We also should note the significant overlap between the Proposing a Hypothesis and Reporting a Viewpoint Meta-Structures. Ultimately, we felt that Reporting a Viewpoint didn't fit this passage, as the author weaves in hints that they agree with Olsen's hypothesis throughout the passage (these hints are enumerated in the Author's Attitude section of the Passage Summary). The author in a Reporting a Viewpoint passage will typically remain entirely neutral throughout the passage. However, it would not be a grave error if you categorized this passage as Reporting a Viewpoint.

Comparison: Comparisons are the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. In fact, the passage makes too many comparisons to enumerate here (they're all included in the Passage Summary above). These comparisons will almost certainly factor into a few questions, so we might need to locate them efficiently. To that end, we recommend highlighting or underlining the comparative words like "unlike" (P1, S3), "not ... different" (P1, S3), "similar" (P2, S1), "slightly outnumber" (P1, S2), and more.

Last Thoughts?

We mentioned this in the Meta-Structure section, but we should follow up with our discussion of the author's attitude. The author hints that they agree with Olsen's conclusions. To notice this, we have to pay special attention to the words the author does and does not use. Several phrases suggest the author is amenable to Olsen's view. The author calls Olsen's analysis "careful" (P1, S1) and says that it is "unreasonable to suppose" that Olsen's evidence wouldn't support her conclusion (P3, S2).

Additionally, the author drops the "attribution" language at several points in the passage. If the author did not want to reveal their opinion of Olsen's work, the author would attribute all of Olsen's conclusions to Olsen. The author would use phrases like "Olsen argues" and "Olsen concludes" throughout the passage and especially when describing conclusions Olsen derives from her evidence. While the author does employ these phrases, the author mostly stops in the final paragraph. The author says the evidence in that paragraph is "another clue" that "further suggests" that Olsen's conclusions are sound (P3, S1, S4). The author doesn't say "Olsen argues this evidence is another clue ..." or "Olsen believes this evidence further suggests ..." in the final paragraph. This also implies that the author agrees with Olsen's findings.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph in which the expression is found, including the expression in question, then use the purpose and the immediate context to define the expression's meaning

Answer Anticipation

This question asks what the author meant when they used the word "beyond" in the last paragraph. Reviewing that quote, the author says the horse skeletons found near human remains suggest a "relationship to horses beyond that of merely hunting them as a source of meat" (P4, S4).We should always make sure the answer choice we select on Meaning in Context questions (1) is an accepted definition of the word or phrase in question and (2) is consistent with the passage's context. Many test-takers focus exclusively on the second criterion. However, the first criterion is also a valid reason to eliminate answer choices.For this question, we'll satisfy (1) by finding an answer choice that's an accepted definition of "beyond." The correct answer should say something along the lines of "more than," "further than," or "in addition to." For (2), we should ensure that the correct answer reflects the author's belief that the Botai probably domesticated and rode horses rather than simply hunted them. Let's look for an answer choice that matches both of these criteria.

Answer choices

  1. A
    basically parallel to
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice satisfy both criteria for a correct answer to a Meaning in Context question?

    Nope. This doesn't match our anticipation of the first criteria. "Basically parallel" is not a valid definition for "beyond," especially when we are expecting something along the lines of "more than" or "further than." Expert test-takers would quickly eliminate this answer for that reason.

  2. B
    more elusive than
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice satisfy both criteria for a correct answer to a Meaning in Context question?

    This option satisfied the first criterion in our answer anticipation with the idea of "more than." However, it doesn't really match the second criterion. The word "elusive" means difficult to catch or grasp. That doesn't reflect the author's belief that the Botai likely domesticated and rode these horses rather than hunted them.

    Besides, if we inserted "more elusive than" into this sentence, it would say the horse skeletons near human remains suggest a "relationship to horses more elusive than that of merely hunting them as a source of meat." That doesn't make a ton of sense, so we can cross off (B).

  3. C
    hard to grasp in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice satisfy both criteria for a correct answer to a Meaning in Context question?

    This answer choice satisfies the first criterion since "hard to grasp" is an acceptable definition of "beyond." However, this answer choice doesn't pass the second criterion. The phrase "hard to grasp" does not match the author's belief that the Botai probably domesticated and rode these horses rather than hunted them.

    If we replaced "beyond" with "hard to grasp in relation to" in the original sentence, it would say the horse skeletons near human remains suggest a "relationship to horses hard to grasp in relation to than that of merely hunting them as a source of meat." That would only obscure the point of the sentence.

  4. D
    less clearly defined than
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice satisfy both criteria for a correct answer to a Meaning in Context question?

    This doesn't match our anticipation of the first criterion: what "beyond" means. "Less clearly defined" doesn't capture what we were expecting with "more than" or "further than." A decisive test-takers would immediately jettison this answer choice.

  5. E
    more complex than
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this answer choice satisfy both criteria for a correct answer on a Meaning in Context question?

    Yes! The phrase "more complex than" is an accepted definition of "beyond" and makes sense within the context of the passage. The author believes that the Botai had a relationship with horses that was "more complex than" merely hunting them — the author thinks the Botai domesticated and rode horses.

    If we replaced "beyond" with "more complex " in the original sentence, it would say the horse skeletons found near human remains suggest a "relationship to horses more complex than merely hunting them as a source of meat." That keeps the original meaning of the sentence intact, so we can confidently select (E).

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion