#11 - There is evidence that a certain ancient society burned large areas of land.

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (D).

In this stimulus, we are told that there is evidence that a certain ancient society burned large areas of land. Some suggest that this is an indication of large-scale agriculture: the society burned the land to clear ground for planting. But, we are told, there is little evidence of cultivation after the fires. So, the author concludes, it is likely that this society was still a hunter-gatherer society.

Because this is a Strengthen question, we should first identify the conclusion, which is the last sentence of the stimulus. To strengthen this conclusion, it would be beneficial to find an answer choice that explains why a hunter-gatherer society would want to clear large areas of land for reasons that were non-agricultural, as this is left unexplained by the stimulus.

Answer choice (A): Interesting, I guess, but we're only concerned with one ancient society in this stimulus, and we are trying to support the idea that they were hunter-gatherer. Whether some agricultural societies had agriculture before they began using fire to clear land is irrelevant to us.

Answer choice (B): Makes sense, but why clear of large tracts of land, then? Can't they just use a campfire? This answer choice tries to present reasonable uses for fire by hunter-gatherer societies, but clearing large tracts of land would not be necessary for these goals, so this does not strengthen the argument.

Answer choice (C): The problem here is "inedible." Sure, a large fire would release the seeds, but we don't know if these seeds become edible once subjected to heat, and we also aren't told why the members of the society can't just gather the seeds and then roast them on an open fire. We need an explanation that makes the use of a large-scale fire reasonable, and this isn't it.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Bingo! This answer choice gives us exactly what we're looking for. Hunter-gatherers hunted animals, and this presents a reasonable explanation for why they would use fire to clear lands that's non-agricultural: it allowed them to move animal populations as a group to a different area efficiently.

Answer choice (E): Again, similar to (A), another interesting fact, but just because few were aware doesn't mean they didn't do it. Ultimately, this does nothing to strengthen our argument about a specific hunter-gatherer society.

[clbrogesr]

Hi - could some explain why D is a better choice than C? It seems they could both support the conclusion that the society was a hunter-gatherer society. C could be saying that they used fire to open up the seeds they had collected (or would collect after the fire) while D could be saying that they used fire to move the animals they sought to hunt.

My thoughts on why D is a better choice than D are two-fold. First, it relates more directly to the stimulus. D tells us about a concrete action that hg societies are believed to have taken, including one that could be directly applied to the stimulus, while C only tells us about a piece of knowledge that we are not even sure hg societies had. Second, an assumption in C seems to be that they burned the shells and then collected the seeds. But that would contradict the premise that there was no cultivation after the fire. My first reason is much stronger than my second, although I think they both work against C.

Is that an effective approach to the question? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

That is a good analysis, cbrogesr. Also take note that the seeds in answer C are not edible, so there would be little point to gathering them unless you were going to plant them and cultivate whatever grew, which would weaken the claim that they were hunter-gatherers rather than an agricultural society.

D gives us an explanation for why hunter-gatherers might burn a large area of land, and this, combined with the lack of evidence for cultivation, strengthens the claim that they were still in that stage.

[clbrogesr]

That is a good analysis, cbrogesr. Also take note that the seeds in answer C are not edible, so there would be little point to gathering them unless you were going to plant them and cultivate whatever grew

Oh man - you know I definitely gave the LSAT more credit than it deserved. I just assumed that the seeds would become edible once subjected to the heat of a great fire, and now clearly see that that assumption is unfounded. Thanks!

[BMM2021]

Hi,

I understand agriculture to meant the cultivation of plants and animals, so I didn't choose D because the shepherding of animal populations via fire would seem to imply that the ancient civilizations were practicing agriculture - thus weakening the conclusion. What am I missing here?

[katehos]

Hi BMM2021!

There are two main reasons why it's not an issue that (D) references moving animal populations from one area to another:

1. (D) specifies this is something hunter-gatherer societies do, which aligns with the stimulus' conclusion that the society in question was a hunter-gatherer society. Strengthen questions fall into the "Help" family of questions, so we accept the information in the answer choice to be true. If the answer choice says hunter-gatherer societies practice some activities we might commonly associate with agriculture, it's not our job to pick that apart! We accept that this is something hunter-gatherer societies do and focus on the task at hand: asking ourselves if this answer choice strengthens the argument by at least 1%.

2. Even if moving animal populations from one area to another were to constitute 'agriculture' in some regard, the author disagrees with those who suggest the burned areas of land indicates "large-scale agriculture" in the society, not 'agriculture' as a whole. Where is the line between some sort of loosely agricultural activity and large-scale agriculture? Do hunter-gatherer societies unequivocally engage in no activity reminiscent of agriculture whatsoever? We don't know!

Long story short, the phrasing of the answer choice and the stimulus make it so that (D) does not weaken the conclusion. Instead, (D) strengthens the conclusion by offering a reason why hunter-gatherer societies might burn a large area of land.

I hope this helps
Kate

[sbose]

Hi there!

I just want to make sure I understand why B is wrong. Is B wrong because presumably you wouldn't need to burn a large area of land for cooking or heat? I had trouble distinguishing B from D since they both point to reasons why a hunter-gatherer society would need to burn land.

Thank you for your help in advance!

[goingslow]

(bumping the previous poster)

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly right, sbose and goingslow. Fires for heating and cooking have little to do with the large areas of land being burned that are described in the stimulus. It's not just "they had fire" that matters; it's that they were burning the land (presumably intentionally). Answer B doesn't add any support to the claim that the people burning the land were hunter-gatherers.

[mkloo11]

Hi! I narrowed the answer choices down to C and D, and ultimately chose D since it more clearly 1) mentioned hunter gatherers and 2) explained their non-agricultural use of large fires. It was clearly stronger, so I fortunately felt pretty secure in that choice.

However, in reading the analysis here, I'm noting that my interpretation of C was slightly different than others'. I noted that the seeds were mentioned as inedible, but I thought that meant that the goal of the fire was to remove (release) those seeds so that the rest of the plants/trees could be eaten. Is that too much of a creative interpretation here? I see that the answer choice doesn't actually say that the trees and plants are meant to be eaten.

I'm glad that D was recognizably the better choice, so my wandering with C didn't cause me to get the question wrong. But I'd still like to learn from C if possible. Thank you!