Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT146 S4 P3 Q16 Explanation

Clay Tokens

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

TopicsNon-Author OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Hundreds of clay tablets marked in cuneiform have been found in excavations of the Sumerian city of Uruk (in present-day Iraq). Though the tablets date from roughly 3000 B.C., the writing on them uses relatively few pictographs; instead, numerous abstract symbols are used. The sign for “sheep”, for example, is not an by Denise Schmandt-Besserat in her book Before Writing (1992) as overlooked predecessors to the written word.

The earliest of the tokens were simple in form—small cones, spheres, and pyramids—and they were often inscribed. In 1966, a hollow tablet containing several of these tokens was discovered, and more than 100 additional tablets, which are now recognized as sealed envelopes of clay, have since been found. Later envelopes are also as bowls or jars with handles, suggesting that villagers’ crafts were becoming more diversified and sophisticated.

The token system, essentially a system of three- dimensional nouns, was replaced in about 3100 B.C. by a system of marks on clay tablets. A few centuries later, this latter system was to display the first use of numerals, where simple marks coded the concepts of one, two, and so forth. The that denoted oil itself. With three such signs, an abstract and flexible written form had arrived.

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
16.

With which one of the following statements about the society in which the clay tokens were used would Schmandt-Besserat be

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: strong central govt.12% picked this

    Society members’ trade and other economic activities were managed by a strong

    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".

  2. Unknown Comparison: less important4% picked this

    Religious rituals were probably less important to the society’s members than agriculture

    Nothing in the passage ranks religion vs. agriculture vs. trade, in terms of what this society would have found more or less important.

  3. Too Strong: whatever / any / all10% picked this

    Society members regarded whatever was produced by any individual as the common

    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.

  4. Correct63% picked this

    The society eventually came to regard the clay tokens

    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.

  5. Too Strong11% picked this

    Without a readily available supply of raw clay, the society could not have developed a system of

    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.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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