LSAT 158 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Bovine remains found in a certain region of Africa date back to …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: The bovines were domesticated and the people were not exclusively hunter-gatherers.

REASONING:

1. The region was arid (very little water)
2. There were bovines present, but no other large mammals
3. If natural water existed, other large mammals would also be there

ANALYSIS: So, we know that the climate was dry, there were no other large mammals, and that if there had been natural water sources, other large mammals would also have been present. This much is valid.

The jump happens after that. Even though there was no water, bovines were still present. So the author concludes that they must have been domesticated (i.e. humans were sustaining them).

But how do we know that?

This would only make sense if we assume that wild bovines could not survive in such an environment on their own. If wild bovines could survive without natural water sources, then their presence would not prove domestication, and the whole argument would fall apart.

We need something that tells us that wild bovines wouldn’t be somewhere that doesn’t have natural water sources.

___________

1. CORRECT. This fits exactly what I described above. The negation of this makes the argument fall apart.
   Negation: Wild bovines are likely to exist in a region where there are no natural sources of water available to them.
2. Too broad. The argument only needs that they’re not exclusively hunter-gatherers, not a full theory of agricultural development.
3. Irrelevant. We don’t care about other mammals with human help. We want to confirm why these bovines were there.
4. The argument doesn’t depend on ruling mixed economies out.
5. This just tells us that domesticated animals need less water than wild animals do. But we need to know how the bovines were there despite no natural water sources.