PT85.S1.Q14 - Through years of excavations and careful

michellejeewonpark

Not sure if there are many people who have already solved this PT but would really appreciate the opportunity to pick your brains regarding this question.

I initially chose D. My reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns with other animals could perhaps reinforce or weaken the idea that more full grown male horse bones = people rode horses. What if mortality patterns of domesticated goats living with the Botai also shows that they had more full-grown males, thus also going against the typical pattern for domesticated animal usage? What if the Botai people just really love male animals? Basically my reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns of other animals could be a point of comparison.

I guess the weakness to my reasoning is that even if goats or other animals go against the typical hypothesis re: domesticating animals, the hypothesis regarding domestication of horses could still be true? So in essence it may not be a good point of comparison and may not yield any information to evaluate the hypothesis? I'm not sure, just trying to pick holes in my reasoning.

I also tried to reason for A: So I'm thinking this is a way for the author to evaluate whether the presence of more male bones than female bones is good enough evidence for the conclusion. If more bones show signs of being gnawed on or something, it could maybe weaken the claim that the Botai people rode horses.

Am I on the right track with A? What do you think regarding my explanation for D?

Admin note: edited title