PT141.S2.Q19 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

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 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

The author hypothesizes that the carved flint object was the head of a speaking staff. This is based on the size of the object and how it looks like a human head with an open mouth, which symbolizes speaking. In addition, a competing hypothesis — that the object was the head of a warrior’s mace — isn’t reasonable because the object is too small to be a weapon.

The author assumes that there’s no other applicable explanation for the object’s purpose besides that it was the head of a speaking staff.

This is consistent with the author’s theory that the object wasn’t a weapon.

This makes the author’s hypothesis less plausible. The object was found in a tomb. Speaking staves are communal objects. If, as (D) says, communal objects are normally passed to the next generation, we wouldn’t expect such objects to be found in a tomb.

The rarity of its artistry has no clear impact on the argument. Does more rarity indicate that the object is less likely to be a speaking staff? We have no reason to think so.

If anything, this might support the author’s theory. We might associate speaking staves with politics. Even if we don’t know whether speaking staves were associated with politics, that just means (D) has no impact.

(E) still refers to a “speaking staff.” Even if a speaking staff might symbolize a warrior’s mace, the object would still be a speaking staff. So, (E) doesn’t help suggest that the object was not a speaking staff.

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action