Reading Comprehension

PT108 · S4 · P4 · Q27 Darwin/Taphonomy

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Darwin's conception of early prehistoric humans as confident, clever hunter-gatherers has long dominated anthropology.

Topic

The traditional vs. revised view of early prehistoric humans' lifestyles—were they bold hunters or cautious scavengers?

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

Recent research, especially via taphonomy, challenges the classic view that early humans were confident hunters and instead suggests they were more likely cautious scavengers. The Most Valuable Sentence appears in the last paragraph:

P1: The Traditional View and Its Flaws

For a long time, people (influenced by Darwin) thought early humans were clever, capable hunters. But this idea was shaped by how fossils were discovered and by mistaking the lifestyles of modern hunter-gatherers for those of prehistoric humans. This led to misinterpretations and overlooked important differences in technology and environmental challenges.

P2: New Ways of Understanding the Fossil Record

Developments in fields like taphonomy (the study of how bones become fossils) have started challenging the old “hunter” narrative. Taphonomy helps researchers ask whether bones were left by human hunters, predators, or natural events, and helps distinguish between marks made by tools and those made by animal teeth.

P3: Applying Taphonomy to Early Fossils

Researchers applied taphonomic analysis to fossils nearly two million years old. By looking at the tiny marks on bones, they found that tool marks didn’t always line up with joints as you’d expect from skilled hunters, and tooth marks from carnivores were sometimes beneath tool marks—suggesting humans showed up after predators had eaten their fill.

27.

The author's primary purpose in writing the passage is to

  1. differentiate between outdated and contemporary

    Wrong Emphasis: research methods

    Even though the new research method of taphonomy plays a supporting role in helping us to this new understanding about early humans, the passage is primarily about our revised assessment of early humans. This answer makes it sound like it was a passage all about different research methods.

    3% picked this

  2. expose the preconceptions behind previous

    Wrong Emphasis

    In an Old / New passage, the more important half is always the New idea. So if we're only going to mention one half of that, it should be the new understanding aided by recent taphonomical research. This answer is focused on erroneous previous research, which means it's really only addressing the 1st paragraph of the passage.

    8% picked this

  3. present a narrative of how

    Weak Match: narrative of events

    The author is ultimately trying to leave us with an updated understanding of early humans' food procurement behaviors. We could stretch that and say, "if the author is explaining that early humans got their food mainly by scavenging, not hunting", isn't that "presenting a narrative story about how the historical event of getting food unfolded"? That's way too stretchy. Early humans' procuring food does not qualify as "historical events". It was a daily necessity. If we're saying "the survival of early humans" is a historical event, and scavenging is how it unfolded, again, we're just being too stretchy with language when a superior answer doesn't require the same reach.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    explain the basis for a

    Why this is right

    We love "revisionary approach" as a nod to our Old / New framework. Since the author highlights taphonomy as the 2nd lead character in this passage, the "explain the basis" matches well with that. We probably would have said, "to explain how a new method of research is revising how we think about early humans" and they're saying, "explaining the basis for a revisionary approach to a subject".

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    66% picked this

  5. describe how a new theory

    Too Strong: replaced

    This is very tempting; it definitely resonates with our Old / New yearnings. We just have to figure out whether "replaced" is justified. Most Old / New passages are presenting new research that suggests a different understanding, but they are still new enough to their field that they haven't become settled science yet. Our Most Valuable Sentence (the first sentence of paragraph 2) says, "Recent intellectual developments have called into question the traditional hypothesis". That's not as strong as "new theory has replaced old theory".

    20% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free