PT118.S1.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author hypothesizes that early humans could appreciate aesthetics. This is shown by the phenomenon that early humans often polished stones more than was needed for hunting purposes.

The author assumes that the only reason early humans would polish flints beyond what was necessary for hunting is to appreciate the aesthetics of the highly polished stones. The author further assumes that there are no other explanations for this degree of polishing.

This does not affect the argument. The premise states that “many” of the early humans’ flints were highly polished; most of them not being highly polished is compatible with the argument.

This does not affect the argument. A lack of cave paintings does not undermine the idea that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense—perhaps they appreciated the aesthetics of highly polished flints but did not care for the aesthetics of cave paintings.

This strengthens the argument. If the purpose of the highly polished flints was for display in religious ceremonies, early humans must have had an aesthetic sense that motivated them to polish the flints for this purpose.

This weakens the argument by offering an alternative explanation for the described phenomenon. The highly polished flints—while not necessary for hunting—could have been used in everyday chores. This explanation gives no reason to suggest that early humans had an aesthetic sense.

This does not affect the argument. Our poor understanding of the benefits early humans could have derived from an aesthetic sense does not undermine the assertion that they may nevertheless have possessed an aesthetic sense.

PrepTest 118 - Section 1 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action