Reading Comprehension

PT147 · S2 · P3 · Q22 Mesolithic Woodland Clearings

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

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.

Topic

Mesolithic woodland clearings: reassessing why ancient humans created and used them

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

While the standard explanation for prehistoric woodland clearings is that they were created or used by Mesolithic populations for economic reasons (mainly hunting and food procurement), the archaeological evidence for this is weak, and an alternative explanation—that clearings were social spaces associated with paths created out of fear of the wilderness—deserves more consideration. (The key "Most Valuable Sentence" summarizing the main point appears near the end: )

P1: The Economic (Hunting) Model and Its Weak Evidence

It's generally thought that Mesolithic people used woodland clearings for hunting/gathering, but there's little hard archaeological evidence directly linking clearings with economic activities.

P2: Ethnographic Support—and Its Limits

Most support for the "resource-procurement" (economic) model comes from studying recent cultures, not from direct evidence, and some ethnographic data points to alternative, noneconomic uses for clearings.

P3: Introducing the "Fear of Wilderness" Argument

Some theorists argue that fear of wild, wooded places has always shaped human behavior—not just in modern times—and if we apply this idea to Mesolithic people, it could change our view of why they cared about clearings.

22.

Which one of the following arguments is most closely analogous to the author’s argument in the second paragraph?

  1. The prosecution's case against the

    Bad Match

    We could think of circumstantial evidence as code for "ethnographic data about modern preindustrial peoples" and archaeological evidence from the Mesolithic settlements as "direct evidence". But both the theory the author is rejecting (the resource-procurement model) and the theory the author is endorsing (the afraid of wilderness model) are using the same type of evidence: ethnographic. While some ethnographic evidence has been used to bolster the resource-procurement model, other ethnographic evidence may suggest a different vision.

    3% picked this

  2. The prosecution maintains that the

    Not the Same Evidence

    What happens in the 2nd paragraph involves a switch from one theory to another, based on the same type of evidence, but not literally the same evidence. While some ethnographic evidence has been used to bolster the resource-procurement model, other ethnographic evidence may suggest a different vision.

    22% picked this

  3. The prosecution's case against the

    Bad Match: no direct evidence

    Again, we would presumably match circumstantial evidence with "ethnographic studies of modern tribes" and match direct evidence with archaeological findings from the Mesolithic people. The 2nd paragraph doesn't say anything strong like, "this suggests that there is NO archaeological data that would support the resource-procurement model." In fact by saying "most of the evidence in favor of resource-procurement comes from ethnography rather than archaeology", it suggests that there actually is some archaeological (i.e. direct) evidence.

    3% picked this

  4. The prosecution's primary witness against

    Too Strong: beyond reproach

    This answer makes it seem like the theory the author is rejecting leans on weak, sketchy evidence, whereas the theory the author is endorsing leans on rock solid evidence. But both theories lean on the same type of evidence: While some ethnographic evidence has been used to bolster the resource-procurement model, other ethnographic evidence may suggest a different vision.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The prosecution's case against the

    Why this is right

    Since circumstantial is our match for "ethnographic evidence", this matches up well. But while some ethnographic evidence has been used to bolster the resource-procurement model, other ethnographic evidence may suggest a different vision.

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

    71% 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