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

Data from which one Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and any relevant parts of the passage and notes, if necessary, concerning the reasoning behind Olsen's hypothesis

Answer Anticipation

This is an unusual question. It's exactly like an Argument Evaluation question in the Logical Reasoning section. We're asked to determine which answer choice would help us evaluate Olsen's hypothesis. We can think of this as a Hypothetical question because, in essence, the answer choice are hypotheticals, and we're determining which one would weigh in most on Olsen's hypothesis.Let's refresh ourselves on Olsen's hypothesis: the Botai didn't domesticate their horses for just meat or milk and instead may have been ridden the horses. We should also take a moment to review Olsen's support for that hypothesis, as outlined in the second and third paragraphs. In the second paragraph, Olsen's main piece of evidence is the fact that they mainly found male horses near Botai dwellings (P2, S2). According to Olsen, the Botai probably didn't hunt horses because you'd typically hunt pods primarily comprising female horses (P2, S5-7). According to Olsen, the horses were also probably not domesticated just for meat and milk since you'd probably only keep a few males for these purposes (P2, S8-9). In the third paragraph, Olsen argues that because many of the horse skeletons were fully intact, it stands to reason that at least some of the horses were domesticated (P3, S1-3).The correct answer will likely help reinforce one of these points. Beyond that, it's hard to predict more specifically than that for this question, so we'll have to keep a somewhat open mind while we assess the options. We'll start our analysis of each answer choice by asking ourselves, "Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticated horses for riding?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    tabulation of the number Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticated horses for riding?

    It would. One way to figure this out is to think through what potentially extreme versions of this data would mean for Olsen's hypothesis.

    So let's assume that a "tabulation of the number of butchered horse bones" in a Botai archaeological site revealed that 99% of the bones were butchered. This would strongly suggest that the Botai domesticated horses for their meat and didn't ride the horses. Not to be too graphic, but you can't ride a butchered horse.

    On the other hand, let's say that a tabulation revealed that 99% of the bones weren't butchered. That would suggest that the Botai didn't domesticate horses for their meat. Combining this information with Olsen's evidence that the Botai domesticated horses would suggest that the Botai may have ridden the horses.

    Since extreme versions of evidence would help us determine whether Olsen's hypothesis was true or false, we can be confident this is the correct answer. However, given the novelty of this question type and the loose nature of Argument Evaluation questions, most test-takers would opt to assess the remaining answer choices before selecting (A).

  2. B
    tabulation of the number Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticated horses for riding?

    No. One way to figure this out is to think through what potentially extreme versions of this data would mean for Olsen's hypothesis.

    Let's assume there were way more sheep and goat bones found near Botai archaeological sites. That could mean that the Botai used sheep and goats as a food source because Botai rode horses and didn't use horses for their meat or milk. Or, it could mean that the Botai ate sheep, goats, and horses but ate more sheep and goats for any number of reasons.

    Alternatively, let's assume there were way more horse bones than goat or sheep bones. That could mean that the Botai needed many horses as a food source since they didn't rely on sheep or goats for their meat or milk. Or, it could mean that many Botai individuals rode horses and that the Botai relied on some non-sheep, non-goat food sources.

    Since the extreme versions of this data don't help us determine whether Olsen's hypothesis is true or false, we can be confident that (B) isn't helpful in evaluating her argument.

  3. C
    determination of the number Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticated horses for riding?

    No. This doesn't even mention horses, which is a big red flag. This also mentions "modern hunting tribes," which are probably irrelevant to making conclusions about an ancient tribe.

    Another way to figure out whether this data would help us evaluate Olsen's hypothesis is to think through what potentially extreme versions of this data would mean for Olsen's hypothesis.

    Let's assume there were no other hunting tribes contemporary to the Botai. That wouldn't tell us whether the Botai hunted or domesticated animals. It also wouldn't tell us which animals the Botai hunted or domesticated. Alternatively, if there were many other hunting tribes, we still wouldn't know whether the Botai hunted or domesticated animals or which animals they hunted or domesticated.

    Since the extreme versions of this data don't help us determine whether Olsen's hypothesis is true or false, we can be confident that (C) doesn't help us evaluate her argument.

  4. D
    analysis of mortality patterns Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticated horses for riding?

    No. Many test-takers like this option, probably because Olsen used the mortality patterns of horses when drawing her conclusions about the Botai. However, notice how many of her claims about the mortality patterns of horses are horse-specific (P2, S4; P3, S2). It's unclear whether similar notes about mortality patterns in other animals would allow us to make conclusions about those animals.

    Plus, even if we could use mortality patterns to determine whether the Botai domesticated animals other than horses, that still wouldn't undermine or support Olsen's conclusion. Olsen didn't say that the Botai only domesticated horses. Even if the Botai domesticated other animals, they could have used horses for their meat or milk or they could have ridden horses. Therefore, this data wouldn't help us evaluate Olsen's hypothesis about horses.

  5. E
    analysis of the ratio Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Would this information help us evaluate whether the Botai domesticate horses for riding?

    No. One way to figure this out is to think through what potentially extreme versions of this data would mean for Olsen's hypothesis.

    So, suppose there were way more human remains than horse remains in Botai ceremonial sites. That could mean that the horses weren't important enough to the Botai to bury with humans. But that wouldn't mean that the Botai didn't ride horses. Modern humans do not typically include car parts in graves, even though we use cars for transportation.

    And even if there were tons of horse remains in Botai ceremonial sites, that still wouldn't prove that the Botai rode horses. Perhaps they revered horses because horses were their only food source or because successfully hunting a horse was viewed as a triumph.

    Since the extreme versions of this data don't help us determine whether Olsen's hypothesis is true or false, we can be confident that (E) doesn't help us evaluate her argument.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion