Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT151 S1 P2 Q9 Explanation

Sandra Olsen

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsMeaning in ContextSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

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. In remains of pit houses of the Botai people, who inhabited for mortality patterns that might correlate with expectations regarding domesticated herds or wild victims of hunting.

Herders of domesticated animals used for meat or milk typically kill off all but a few males before they are fully mature, but not the females, and archaeologists have evidence of a similar pattern for prehistoric goat herding. At the Botai sites, however, Olsen has found that most of the male horses if the Botai had indeed begun riding, they would likely have kept males alive to ride.

Another clue that at least some of the horses may have been domesticated and that some may have even been ridden is in the fact that their remains include full skeletons, entire vertebral columns, and pelvises. It is unreasonable to suppose that hunters dragged whole 1,000-pound carcasses back to their dwellings. Olsen suggests a relationship to horses beyond that of merely hunting them as a source of meat.

What this question is testing

Meaning in Context

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
9.

Which one of the following could replace the word “beyond” while least altering the meaning of the sentence

Answer choices

  1. Opposite0% picked this

    basically parallel

    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".

  2. Too Mysterious5% picked this

    more elusive

    (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!

  3. Too Mysterious1% picked this

    hard to grasp in relation

    (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!

  4. Too Mysterious2% picked this

    less clearly defined

    (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. Correct92% picked this

    more complex

    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.

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