Reading Comprehension

PT151 · S1 · P2 · Q9 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

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.

9.

Which one of the following could replace the word "beyond" in the last sentence of the passage while least altering the meaning of the sentence in which it appears?

  1. basically parallel to

    Opposite

    This is expressing an equivalence. The relationship "was basically just hunting them for meat". We want to hear that the relationship "was more than just hunting them for meat".

    0% picked this

  2. more elusive than

    Too Mysterious

    (B), (C), and (D) all seem pretty much the same. To say a relationship is more elusive, harder to grasp, less clearly defined implies a mystery as to what that relationship may have been. But this passage is trying to advance a pretty specific, clearly defined thesis: they were riding (and possibly loving) these horses!

    5% picked this

  3. hard to grasp in relation

    Too Mysterious

    (B), (C), and (D) all seem pretty much the same. To say a relationship is more elusive, harder to grasp, less clearly defined implies a mystery as to what that relationship may have been. But this passage is trying to advance a pretty specific, clearly defined thesis: they were riding (and possibly loving) these horses!

    1% picked this

  4. less clearly defined than

    Too Mysterious

    (B), (C), and (D) all seem pretty much the same. To say a relationship is more elusive, harder to grasp, less clearly defined implies a mystery as to what that relationship may have been. But this passage is trying to advance a pretty specific, clearly defined thesis: they were riding (and possibly loving) these horses!

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    more complex than

    Why this is right

    When we say "a relationship more complex than merely X", we're saying "Yes, it was X, but it was also something else." The whole implicit meaning of this last sentence is that the Botai were not just hunting the horses for meat; they were also riding them. Given that this is a 2nd use of horses, it's a more complex relationship than simply hunting for meat. "Riding them and eating them" is more complex than "just eating them". And given the detail about being buried with the horse, it sounds like some of the Botai may have even loved the horses they rode as trusted friends, which is also a more complex relationship.

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

    92% picked this

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