Reading Comprehension

PT146 · S4 · P3 · Q21 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.

21.

With which one of the following statements regarding the sign for “sheep” (third sentence of the first paragraph) would the author of the passage be most likely to agree?

Correct
It could have been replaced
Why this is right
Hahaha, my prediction was WAY off! I would have never predicted this wording. And that's fine. We can aspire to predict but still realize that we're ultimately at the mercy of what answers we're offered. This answer is not supported much by any single sentence in the passage, it's just supported by two things: 1. we know the author considers the sign for "sheep" to be an abstract symbol 2. our common sense would tells us that if you're picking an abstract symbol to represent something, it doesn't matter what it is. If I'm going to label grape jelly with a lightning bolt, it would just as make sense to label it with a pyramid. It's just an abstract symbol that people will learn, by convention, to associate with grape jelly. It always feels unnerving (to me) to pick answer choices that involve adding so much common sense, but modern RC will make us do that sometimes.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
58% picked this
The sign gets its meaning
Too Strong: radically different Opposite
The author is actually presenting the sign for sheep and the one for metal as two similar examples of highly abstract symbols. The "while" being used there is not the contrast-while, but rather the simultaneous-while. Ben cooked dinner, while Kyle set the table.
13% picked this
The way in which it
Out of Scope: causal backstory
We have no idea how a circled cross came to mean "sheep". There's nothing in the passage that suggests that because sheep are an agricultural commodity rather than a product of human industry, that allowed people to see how a circled cross would represent the meaning "sheep". This is sort of the opposite of the correct answer. This answer is making it seem like the symbol for sheep is meaningful and has a causal backstory. The correct answer is recognizing that the author's point is that the sign for sheep is totally arbitrary, just an abstract symbol.
6% picked this
The way in which it
Too Strong
Too Strong: not until Unsupported: S-B connection This is a very harshly worded claim, and not only do we not know, "no one prior to Schmandt-Besserat ever gave scientific scrutiny to how the sheep sign represented sheep", we don't even know if Schmandt-Besserat ever gave this sign scientific scrutiny. She was studying clay tokens near the Jordan river from 4000 B.C. This sheep sign is from present-day Irag from 3000 B.C.
17% picked this
The abstract nature of the
Too Strong
Too Strong: reveals a great deal Out of Scope: political life The author would probably say the abstract nature of the sign reveals that humans already had the abstract writing precursors to the written language by 3000 B.C. (if not earlier). But the author hasn't drawn any connections between the abstract sign and the political life of the people who used cuneiform.
7% 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