LSAT 156 – Section 4 – Question 06

LSAT 156 - Section 4 - Question 06

July 2020

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:57

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
PT156 S4 Q06
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
7%
147
B
3%
143
C
3%
147
D
1%
138
E
85%
159
132
140
147
 +Easier 147.09 +SubsectionMedium

Anthropologist: 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. Ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as primarily big-game hunters, but most of their food must have in fact come from other sources, such as small game and plants. Hunting large animals is a dangerous activity that would have risked the lives of several members of the community.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
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.

Identify Argument Part
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.

A
It is a premise used as support for the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
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.
B
It is a clarification of one of the premises of the anthropologist’s argument.
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.
C
It is an objection that the anthropologist raises against an opposing theory.
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.
D
It is the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
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.
E
It describes a claim that the anthropologist attempts to refute.
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.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 156 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply