It is generally accepted that woodland clearings were utilized by Mesolithic human populations (populations in Europe roughly 7,000 to 12,000 years ago) for food procurement. Whether there was deliberate removal of tree cover to attract grazing animals or whether naturally created clearings just afforded opportunistic hunting, the common view is that clearings preparation of animals for human consumption took place within or near such clearings is generally lacking.
Most of the evidence invoked in favor of the resource-procurement model for clearings comes from ethnography rather than archaeology, and principally from the recognition that some recent premodern populations used fire to increase grazing areas. But while some ethnographic evidence has been used to bolster the resource-procurement model, other ethnographic of why clearings may have been deliberately created and/or used.
Geographer Yi-Fu Tuan argues that right up through the modern era, human behavior has been driven by fear of the wilderness. While we might be tempted to see this kind of anxiety as a product of modern urban life, it is clear that such fears are also manifest in preliterate and nonurban view of the purpose and use of woodland clearings may change.
We have recently become aware of the importance of woodland paths in prehistory. The fact that Mesolithic human populations moved around the landscape is not a new idea. However, the fact that they may have done so along prescribed pathways has only recently come to the fore. I propose that one of fear of harm from wildlife or spirits, or of simply getting lost.
From this view an alternative hypothesis may be developed. First, paths become established and acquire a measure of long-term permanence. Then this permanence leads to concentration of activity in some areas (near the paths) rather than others (away from the paths). This allows us to legitimately consider wilderness as a motivating concept meet, wider clearings emerge as corners are cut and intersections become convenient spots for resting.
What this question is testing
Your task
Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.
Common trap
Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.
Winning move
Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.