Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S4 · Q24 The only fossilized bones of large prey found

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

The only fossilized bones of large prey found in and around settlements of early humans bear teeth marks of nonhuman predators on areas of the skeleton that had the most meat, and cut marks made by humans on the areas that had the least meat.

Information

The bones we've found from large animals that lived near humans shows teeth marks from nonhuman predators on the meatiest parts of the body and cut marks made by humans on the areas with the least meat.

Predators that hunted large animals such as these ate the meatiest parts of the carcasses, leaving uneaten remains behind.

Predator of → ate meatiest parts large prey

Evaluate

It sounds like these humans were scavenging. If humans were actually hunting the large animals, then according to the conditional in the second sentence, they would have eaten the meatiest parts of the carcass.

However, the fossil evidence is showing that humans didn't eat the meatiest parts (nonhuman predators did). So by contrapositive logic, humans were not predators of these large prey.

But since there are cut marks on the areas with the least meat, it looks like humans were apt to find the uneaten remains of a large animal carcass and then to cut off all the remaining edible parts.

24.

If the information above is true, it provides the most support for which one of the following?

  1. Early humans were predators of

    Unsupported: small prey

    We can sign off on the second half of this answer, but we don't have any support for the idea that humans hunted small prey. For all we know, they may have just scavenged large prey.

    3% picked this

  2. Early humans ate fruits and

    Out of Scope: fruits / roots

    We never discussed fruits or roots at all, so we have no support for this claim.

    1% picked this

  3. Early humans would have been

    Out of Scope: groups vs. individual

    We never talk about how humans hunted (they may have hunted in large groups, so this supposed-counterfactual might be meaningless).

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Early humans were not hunters

    Why this is right

    This is the most supportable answer choice. By contrapositive logic from the rule in the last sentence, we know that humans were not hunters of large prey. And from the evidence of cut marks made by humans on the less-meaty parts of carcasses, it's reasonable to guess that humans were scavenging the uneaten remains of the large prey.

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

    93% picked this

  5. Early humans were nomadic, and

    Out of Scope: nomads

    Nothing in this paragraph talks in any way about how human populations lived (nomadically or otherwise).

    3% 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