- Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:45 pm
#97183
Think of the author's purpose here, mkarimi73. Are they trying to show that the resource procurement model is incorrect or inherently flawed? Or are they just suggesting that an alternate explanation may be correct? That's the word the author keeps using - our view may change, fear may have been the primary motivator, paths may be explained another way.
The author isn't arguing against the other hypothesis. Instead, they are just trying to suggest that there may be another explanation, and bringing up fear of the wilderness is meant to support that hypothesis rather than raise doubt about the other one. Also, answer A is far too strong - fear of the wilderness does not, by itself, render the original hypothesis doubtful. It just gives rise to a possible alternative.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam