LSAT 136 – Section 4 – Question 18

LSAT 136 - Section 4 - Question 18

June 2012

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:26

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT136 S4 Q18
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
9%
161
B
2%
159
C
19%
159
D
1%
157
E
69%
166
147
156
166
 +Harder 146.121 +SubsectionMedium

A high-calorie diet providing adequate fats was a crucial requirement for the evolution of the anatomically modern human brain, a process that began among our early human ancestors. Food resources that could support such a diet were most abundant and reliable in the shore environments that were available to early humans. Nevertheless, the human brain’s evolution took place almost exclusively in savanna and woodland areas.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the human brain’s evolution take place almost entirely in the savnna and woodland rather than the shore, even though the food reources that could supply the high-calorie diet required for the brain’s development was more abundant in the shore?

Objective
The correct answer should help us differentiate the shore environment from the savanna and woodland in a way that could help explain why the brain’s development occurred in the savanna and woodland.

A
Early humans had a significantly lower metabolic rate than anatomically modern humans, allowing them to expend their fat reserves more efficiently.
This doesn’t differentiate the shore from the savanna and woodland. Even if early humans needed less fat, why did brain development occur in the savanna and woodland, which had less of the food resources required by the brain than did the shore? This doesn’t provide a theory.
B
The brains of the earliest known humans were 30 percent smaller than the anatomically modern human brain.
This doesn’t differentiate the shore from the savanna and woodland. Even if early humans had smaller brains, why did brain development occur in the savanna and woodland, which had less of the food resources required by the brain than did the shore? This doesn’t provide a theory.
C
Prehistoric savanna and woodland areas offered more reliable and abundant resources than they do today.
This compares savanna/woodland of the past to savanna/woodland of today. But it doesn’t compare the past savanna/woodland to the past shore environment. The stimulus still tells us that the past shore environment had more of the food resources than the past savanna/woodland.
D
The techniques used to explore the archaeology of prehistoric shore sites have only recently been developed.
This doesn’t suggest anything about the level of food resources available in the shore environment. Don’t assume that because the techniques were recently developed that we should doubt the facts given to us in the stimulus.
E
Gathering food in shore environments required a significantly greater expenditure of calories by early humans than did gathering food in other environments.
If it cost more in calories to gather food in the shore than it did to gather food in the savanna/woodland, this extra cost could have outweighed the benefit of more food in the shore. It’s possible overall calorie intake could be higher in the savanna/woodland than in the shore.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply