Reading Comprehension

PT151 · S1 · P2 · Q14 Sandra Olsen

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

Through years of excavations and careful analysis of her finds around Krasnyi Yar in Kazakhstan, archaeologist Sandra Olsen has assembled what may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses, a momentous development in human history.

Topic

Possible evidence for early horse domestication and riding among the Botai people in Kazakhstan.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Archaeologist Sandra Olsen uses several lines of evidence—mainly patterns in horse bone remains—to argue that the Botai people of Kazakhstan likely domesticated and rode horses around 6,000 years ago, rather than simply hunting them for meat. (The most valuable sentence appears near the end of P1: )

P1: The Puzzle of the Botai Horse Remains

Olsen investigates vast horse bone deposits from the ancient Botai people, noting that horse bones don’t show clear signs of domestication like other animals. She focuses on patterns in the age and sex of the remains to figure out whether these horses were wild or domesticated.

P2: Analyzing the Bone Patterns—Wild or Domesticated?

Olsen explains typical herd management (culling young males) versus hunting patterns. The Botai horses don’t fully match either model: there are many fully grown males, suggesting a different relationship. Olsen suggests that if the Botai were riding horses, they would have kept adult males alive for that purpose.

P3: Skeletal Clues and Special Treatment

Finding whole horse skeletons (not just parts you'd expect from a hunted animal) and evidence of intentional burial alongside human remains further supports the idea that the Botai weren’t just hunting horses, but had a special, possibly domesticated, relationship with them—potentially even riding them.

14.

Data from which one of the following sources would be most relevant to evaluating Olsen's hypothesis?

Correct
tabulation of the number of
Why this is right
The concept of whether or not the horse bones were butchered gets back to the issue of whether these horses were chopped down for meat or whether they were living with the Botai, being ridden by them (and maybe even loved as BFF's). If most of the horse bones at the site are untouched, then the horses were presumably not eaten for meat. They died and their entire body was buried (the way you would with a loved one). This supports the hypothesis that "the Botai had horses in order to ride them". If most of the horse bones were butchered, then the horses were presumably eaten for meat, not raised to be ridden. This answer ties into the beginning of the final paragraph, which identifies "full skeletons / entire vertebral columns / pelvises" as a clue that at least some of the horses were domesticated and that some may have even been ridden.
Skill tested: Evaluate · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
tabulation of the number of
No Impact: sheep / goat bones
If we knew there were 1,000 sheep/goat bones and only 500 horse bones (or vice versa), would that strengthen or weaken the idea that the horse bones belonged to horses that were ridden by the Botai people? Neither. Who cares how many sheep/goat bones there were at the site. How would that tell us whether the horses were ridden?
3% picked this
determination of the number of
No Impact: modern hunters
If we knew there were 100 hunting tribes in the area during the Botai's time there whereas there are only 50 tribes in the area nowadays (or vice versa), would that strengthen or weaken the idea that the horses found at the Botai site were ridden by the Botai people? Neither. Who cares how the number of hunting tribes then vs. now compare. How would that help us assess whether the horse bones we found at the Botai site were hunted wild horses, horses domesticated for meat/milk, or horses domesticated for riding (which could still have been involved in hunting other animals).
1% picked this
analysis of mortality patterns in
No Impact: other species
If we saw bones from pigs at this site, is there something we could learn about the pig bones that would help us assess whether the Botai people domesticated horses for the sake of riding them? No, because horses are pretty unique. They are the only animal (other than maybe camels or elephants in certain exotic contexts) that humans have the option of riding. So whatever the Botai's behavior was in relation to other animal species, it would be hard to carry that over to any inference about horses, because horses are unique in having the potential to also be ridden.
12% picked this
analysis of the ratio of
Unclear Impact: ratio of human / horse
If we saw there were 3 human bodies for every 1 horse body (or vice versa), would that tell us anything about whether the horses were domesticated and ridden? It's not clear how a ratio of human remains to horse remains would provide any clarity on that question. If the horses were domesticated in order to be ridden (rather than, say, domesticated for meat and milk), would we expect the ratio of human remains to horse remains to be a certain way? There doesn't seem to be any common sense connection between the ratio of remains and the question of what relationship the Botai had to horses.
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