Anthropologist: Support During the last ice age, nomadic communities probably needed at least 15 or 20 members to survive, and they were generally not much larger than this. ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
The anthropologist concludes that ice-age nomads’ food mostly came from plants and small animals, not big-game hunting as many people believe. In support, the anthropologist says that ice-age nomad communities likely only had about 15 to 20 members, and that big-game hunting would have risked multiple community members’ lives. This supports the idea that ice-age nomads would generally avoid big-game hunting.
The text indicated by the question stem is the position the argument seeks to counter. The common portrayal of ice-age nomads as big-game hunters is shown to be a misconception by the anthropologist’s argument.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████
It is a ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement about ice-age nomads’ portrayal is not a premise, because it doesn’t support the argument’s conclusion. The claim that many people think ice-age nomads were big-game hunters gives us no reason to believe that nomads mostly got food from other sources.
It is a █████████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement that ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as big-game hunters is unrelated to the argument’s premises, and definitely doesn’t clarify them. The premises are about how ice-age nomads actually lived, not about their popular depiction.
It is an █████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████
Firstly, the argument doesn’t present an opposing theory, just a common misconception and an explanation of why it’s wrong—so this can’t be true. Secondly, the anthropologist doesn’t use this statement to make any kind of point; it’s not a premise of any kind.
It is the ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement about common depictions of ice-age nomads isn’t the conclusion because nothing else in the argument supports it. The anthropologist’s conclusion, supported by factual premises, is that ice-age nomads mostly got their food from plants and small animals.
It describes a █████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ██ ███████
This is exactly the role played by the claim that ice-age nomads are often portrayed as big-game hunters. The anthropologist’s argument is focused on proving why that portrayal is wrong, by showing that ice-age nomads mostly ate plants and small animals.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.