Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q13 In northern Europe, archaeologists have

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning 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

In northern Europe, archaeologists have discovered 400,000-year-old sharpened wooden poles alongside flint cutting implements and the remains of horses.

Evidence

In northern Europe, archaeologists have discovered 400,000-year-old sharpened wooden poles alongside flint cutting implements and the remains of horses.

It is normally assumed that Homo sapiens did not inhabit Europe prior to 200,000 years ago.

Conclusion

This discovery [the sharpened poles, cutting implements, and remains] effectively disproves the widespread belief that the humanlike precursors of Homo sapiens were entirely gatherers and scavengers and did not hunt.

Evaluate

If we accept the assumption about Homo sapiens (humans) in the second premise, then the sharpened wooden poles and flint cutting implements were probably not made by humans and were likely made by our humanlike ancestors. However, we don't know what the poles and cutting implements were used for. We can't be certain that they were used for hunting, so their existence doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything.

Goal

A correct answer might support the idea that the sharpened poles or cutting implements were used for hunting. It could also refute the alternative possibility that they were used for something other than hunting.

13.

Which one of the following, if true, would add the most support to the argument?

  1. Correct

    Sharpened wooden poles were not

    Why this is right

    This answer eliminates two major alternative explanations for the sharpened poles. If the poles were not used for self-defense or for cutting and transporting scavenged carcasses, then the remaining plausible use is hunting. By ruling out non-hunting purposes, this answer strengthens the inference that the poles were hunting weapons. Combined with the horse remains found alongside, the hunting interpretation becomes much more compelling. The argument needed help closing the gap between "found tools near dead animals" and "used tools to kill animals," and this answer does exactly that.

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

    70% picked this

  2. Humanlike inhabitants of northern Europe

    Premise Support

    This answer establishes that humanlike inhabitants used stone and wooden tools more than 400,000 years ago. This makes it more plausible that the discovered artifacts were made by humanlike precursors rather than some other agent, which reinforces a premise. But the argument's weakness is not about who made the tools — it is about what the tools were used for. Knowing that precursors were capable of making tools does not tell us whether those tools were used for hunting, self-defense, or processing scavenged food. This answer supports the premise but does not strengthen the conclusion.

    10% picked this

  3. Homo sapiens evolved from humanlike

    Out of Scope

    This answer says Homo sapiens evolved from precursors at least 200,000 years earlier than normally assumed. Even if modern humans evolved earlier, the argument's second premise states they "did not inhabit Europe" before 200,000 years ago — and evolving earlier does not necessarily mean inhabiting Europe earlier. This answer challenges the timeline of evolution, not the timeline of European habitation, which is the relevant premise. And even if it did affect the timeline, it would not help determine whether the tools were used for hunting.

    5% picked this

  4. The humanlike precursors of Homo

    Unclear Impact

    This answer says that humanlike precursors developed "widely divergent patterns of behavior" in different ecosystems. This is too vague to strengthen the argument. "Widely divergent behavior" could include hunting, but it could also include many other activities — tool-making for non-hunting purposes, complex social behaviors, shelter construction, or entirely different survival strategies. Without specifying that hunting was among these behaviors, this answer has no clear bearing on the conclusion. It broadens the range of possible behaviors without narrowing down to the one the argument needs to establish.

    5% picked this

  5. Prehistoric Homo sapiens who adopted

    Unclear Impact

    This answer says that prehistoric Homo sapiens who hunted did not abandon scavenging and gathering. This is about Homo sapiens, not about the humanlike precursors the argument discusses. Even applying it to precursors, the fact that hunting and scavenging coexisted does not help establish that the precursors hunted in the first place. If anything, the coexistence of multiple food-acquisition strategies makes it harder to determine from artifacts alone whether a particular set of tools was used for hunting, scavenging, or gathering. This answer does not help resolve the ambiguity about tool use that weakens the argument.

    10% 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