Reading Comprehension

PT146 · S4 · P3 · Q16 Clay Tokens

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

Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq).

Topic

The origins and evolution of writing in ancient Mesopotamia, focusing on how clay tokens led to abstract cuneiform writing.

Framework

Theme / Example

Main Point

Ancient clay tokens served as precursors to written language in Mesopotamia, and over time, this token system transformed into increasingly abstract and flexible writing forms like cuneiform. The Most Valuable Sentence: The passage’s main point is neatly summed up in the transition of tokens to written marks—especially the lines, (Paragraph 3)

P1: Discovery of Early Writing and the Puzzle of Abstract Symbols

Researchers find ancient clay tablets from Uruk, dated around 3000 B.C., with abstract, non-pictorial cuneiform writing—which is unusual for such an early date. Archaeologists often ignored even older clay tokens found nearby, but Denise Schmandt-Besserat argues these tokens were actually early precursors to writing.

P2: Description and Evolution of Tokens into Record-Keeping

Early tokens were simple in shape and sometimes inscribed, later found inside sealed "envelope" tablets. These inscribed tokens probably served as records of agricultural contributions to temples. After 4000 B.C., more sophisticated token shapes appeared, reflecting increased complexity in crafts and record-keeping.

P3: Transition from Token System to Written Language

Eventually, the system shifted from three-dimensional tokens to marks on clay tablets (about 3100 B.C.), allowing for record-keeping using drawn symbols instead of physical tokens. This evolved into full-fledged writing, with separate signs for numerals, objects, and even abstract ideas—leading to a more flexible and advanced written language system.

16.

With which one of the following statements about the society in which the clay tokens were used would Schmandt-Besserat be most likely to agree?

Society members’ trade and other
Out of Scope: strong central govt.
We can support that there was some central organization, because the 2nd paragraph's depiction of villagers contributing livestock and grain to a community pool speaks to some level of collectivism and central organization. But it's identified as temple-based, not governmental authority. And it's too broad even to say that these temples managed "trade and other activities".
12% picked this
Religious rituals were probably less
Unknown Comparison: less important
Nothing in the passage ranks religion vs. agriculture vs. trade, in terms of what this society would have found more or less important.
4% picked this
Society members regarded whatever was
Too Strong: whatever / any / all
We can support that there was some collectivism, because of the 2nd paragraph's depiction of villagers contributing livestock and grain to a community pool. But we only heard that grain and livestock were somewhat treated as communal property. It's a huge leap from that to saying that whatever was produced by any person was thus the common property of all.
10% picked this
Correct
The society eventually came to
Why this is right
The 3rd paragraph tells us in its first sentence that the token system was replaced in about 3100 B.C. In the middle of the last paragraph, we get a little more support for redundancy, as they describe how ... at first ... it took two ovoid tokens to record two jars of oil a little later ... it took two markings on clay tablet (using the outline of the old token) Since the token system was replaced by clay tablets, the old tokens lived on in terms of the meaning of their familiar outlines, but it would have been redundant to also have the tokens. This is, of course, a little speculative. Maybe there was some utility in having the tokens for some other purpose that we weren't told about. But this is the best available answer. We have more textual support for this than for any other contender.
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
Without a readily available supply
Too Strong
Too Strong: without clay, could not have Nothing in the passage indicates that clay was the only plausible option for what to make tokens out of. But this answer is acting like having a token system required having clay. They could have carved tokens into wood or stone, for all we know.
11% 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