PT158.S3.Q11 > 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the society was a hunter-gatherer society. She bases this on evidence that they burned large areas of land with little sign of farming afterward, making it unlikely they were agricultural, as some suggest.

The author assumes that because large areas of land were burned with little evidence of farming afterward, the society must have been hunter-gatherer. She doesn’t consider why a hunter-gatherer society would burn a large area of land, or whether an agricultural society might burn large areas of land for some reason other than farming.

Irrelevant—the society in the stimulus did use fire to clear large areas of land. Whether some ancient agricultural societies did not do this doesn't matter. Instead, we need an answer that helps us determine if these fires indicate a hunter-gatherer society.

Irrelevant— using fire for cooking and heat during the cold is not the same as burning large areas of land. We need to know why burning large areas of land might be evidence of a hunter-gatherer society. Whether this society used fire in other ways doesn’t matter.

Even if we assume that these inedible seeds grow into edible plants and that the best way to release them is to burn a large area of land, (C) weakens the argument because it presents evidence of an agricultural society, not a hunter-gatherer society.

This strengthens the argument by addressing the assumption that a hunter-gatherer society would have reason to burn a large area of land at all. If hunter-gatherer societies used fire to move animals from one area to another, the author’s conclusion becomes much more plausible.

Irrelevant—even if this society didn’t know that burning organic material can enrich soil, (E) only tells us that they probably didn’t plant on the land, which was already stated in the stimulus.

PrepTest 158 - Section 3 - Question 11

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action