Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q8 Anthropologist: For early humans who

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

Anthropologist: For early humans who moved from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture, the transition must have been traumatic.

Intermediate Conclusion

For early humans who moved from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture, the transition must have been traumatic.

Evidence

There would have been increased incidence of disease and injury and a more homogeneous diet lacking vital nutrients more easily obtainable from the richly varied diet of hunter-gatherers.

Main Conclusion

Groups that made the transition were likely motivated by certain benefits that accompany the settled life of the agriculturist, such as opportunities for the accumulation of wealth by those with specialized social roles.

Evaluate

The statement that is quoted in the question stem is an intermediate conclusion. It is supported by the evidence in the second sentence, and supports the main conclusion in the final sentence.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the anthropologist's overall argument by the statement that for early humans who moved from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture, the transition must have been traumatic?

Correct
It is a premise for
Why this is right
The quoted statement supports the main conclusion and is itself supported by another premise (disease, injury, diet evidence). The LSAT's description — "a premise for which another premise is offered as support" — accurately captures both relationships. While we might call this an "intermediate conclusion," calling it a "premise" is not technically wrong since it does support the main conclusion.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% picked this
It is background information that
Background
The statement plays a direct logical role — it supports the main conclusion and is supported by evidence. Background information would be a neutral fact that sets the scene without participating in the argument's logic.
3% picked this
It is a premise for
Premise
This claims no support is offered for the quoted statement. But the second sentence — increased disease, injury, and a less nutritious diet — directly supports the claim that the transition was traumatic. Support is clearly offered.
2% picked this
It is the conclusion of
Conclusion
The main conclusion is the final sentence, introduced by "thus." The quoted statement supports this conclusion but is not the conclusion itself.
14% picked this
It is a claim that
Opposing Idea
The argument supports and builds upon the "traumatic" claim rather than seeking to rebut it. An opposing viewpoint would be contested by the argument, but this statement is firmly integrated into the argument's reasoning.
2% 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