#14 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Adam Tyson]

I think you found your way there, Mazen!

But let's take it a step further. Let's talk about some other animals altogether, animals that were never mentioned. I'm going to think about pigs now.

What if we look at the mortality patterns in the remains of pigs found at the Botai site and find that they are similar to horses, with a lot of adult males and fewer females? What would that tell us about the horse theory? I don't see what it would tell us, honestly. We might say to ourselves "okay, so something similar is happening with pigs, but they probably aren't riding pigs, so what else could be going on? Well I suppose it depends on a lot of things, like how pigs live in the wild and how they behave when they are being hunted. And were the skeletons whole, or were they in pieces? How heavy were pig carcasses; did it make sense to drag them back home after killing them?" And on and on.

And what if the patterns were similar to those of goats and dogs? That wouldn't tell us anything new about the horses, because we already know that the horse pattern differs from the pattern typical of some other animals. This finding would neither support nor weaken the hypothesis about horses.

In short, what happens with other animals doesn't matter. Horses are different. The most relevant data we could find would be data that is directly about the horses, data which would tell us more about whether they were hunted, raised as a food source, or raised to be ridden. Even if we could somehow find some relevant information by doing further comparisons to other animals, answer A is directly on point and would be much more relevant. And the question didn't just ask "what would be relevant"; it asked "what would be most relevant."

[mab9178]

Adam:

Not only do you go a step further, but you also teach me a much quicker reasoning method to eliminate D.

Additionally, I am very comfortable and happy with your explanation because you use textual support to show that the two polar opposite answers to D fall short from yielding the type of conclusion that is needed to impact Dr. Olsen's hypothesis either negatively or a positively.

Finally, I am aware of the intellectual taxation these posts levy on you and more broadly the PowerScore LSAT experts. It is not lost on me!

You are much appreciated for correcting and improving my reasoning!

Respectfully,
Mazen

You are much appreciated!

[Adam Tyson]

I'd say that info about goats and sheep wouldn't tell us anything about horses, Mazen. If the patterns are similar, we would be baffled, because that would seem at odds with what we know about those animals, but that wouldn't mean we were wrong about the horses. And if the patterns in goat and sheep remains were what we would usually expect from animals raised for meat and milk, that still wouldn't tell us anything about the horses. It would neither add to, nor detract from, Olsen's claims.

[lounalola]

This is a nitpicky question but why is this a must be true question instead of an evaluate-the-argument question?

[miriamson07]

Hi Flex,

There's a few reasons we would think that bones from domesticated horses would have different marks from those that were hunted. The stimulus tells us that the bones were found in ceremonial burials, suggesting that they would be unlikely to butcher a domestic horse in the same way as a hunted horse. But mostly, we would expect them to be different because the passage tells us that they look different. It tells us that hunted horses are rarely brought as a full skeleton, but domestic horses were buried whole. That means that we can tell from the skeleton if it was likely wild or domesticated.

Hope that helps.

Hello,

I'm still confused about why choice A is the right answer because of this portion in the first paragraph of the passage: "it is not immediately evident whether the horses were wild or domesticated, because unlike other animals such as dogs and sheep, domestic horses' bones are not morphologically different from those of their wild counterparts." If the difference in bone shape does not offer any revelation regarding whether the horses are wild or domesticated, wouldn't a tabulation of butchered vs. unbutchered bones be useless? I am assuming from the statement that "it is not immediately evident whether the horses were wild or domesticated," that the appearance of the bones do not reveal whether the horses are wild or domestic. The only explanation I can think of is that whether the bones are butchered is not readily seen by the naked eye, and is revealed with further investigation.

I would appreciate any help. Thank you.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Miriam!

The important context surrounding the bones here is whether or not they were butchered (i.e. used for meat). Lines 36 through 42 discuss exactly this: "Thus, if the Botai had merely hunted horses, Olsen argues, the proportion of adult male bones should be lower. But if they were in domesticated herds, why were the young males not culled, as would typically occur with, say, herds of goats? Olsen reasons that if the Botai had indeed begun riding, they would likely have kept males alive to ride."

We know that there were large numbers of horse bones in the areas inhabited by the Botai people (lines 6-9), and we know that these potentially domesticated horses were not used solely for meat (see above). The author also indicates that some wild horses may have been hunted and used for meat (lines 48-51).

Now let's look at answer choice a: "Tabulation of the number of butchered horse bones versus untouched horse bones in a Botai archaeological site."

We can imply here that butchered horse bones are the bones of horses used for food/meat, and that untouched horse bones were from horses who died of natural causes (and thus were likely used for riding purposes by the Botai people). This information could help to further determine the number of horses used for varying purposes, and shed some additional light on the likelihood of whether or not the Botai people domesticated horses for riding purposes.

I hope this helps!

[miriamson07]

Hi Miriam!

The important context surrounding the bones here is whether or not they were butchered (i.e. used for meat). Lines 36 through 42 discuss exactly this: "Thus, if the Botai had merely hunted horses, Olsen argues, the proportion of adult male bones should be lower. But if they were in domesticated herds, why were the young males not culled, as would typically occur with, say, herds of goats? Olsen reasons that if the Botai had indeed begun riding, they would likely have kept males alive to ride."

We know that there were large numbers of horse bones in the areas inhabited by the Botai people (lines 6-9), and we know that these potentially domesticated horses were not used solely for meat (see above). The author also indicates that some wild horses may have been hunted and used for meat (lines 48-51).

Now let's look at answer choice a: "Tabulation of the number of butchered horse bones versus untouched horse bones in a Botai archaeological site."

We can imply here that butchered horse bones are the bones of horses used for food/meat, and that untouched horse bones were from horses who died of natural causes (and thus were likely used for riding purposes by the Botai people). This information could help to further determine the number of horses used for varying purposes, and shed some additional light on the likelihood of whether or not the Botai people domesticated horses for riding purposes.

I hope this helps!

Ah, got it! The mistake I made was equating “wild horse bones” with “butchered horse bones.” But actually, only butchered wild horse bones are butchered! Thank you.