LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q15

RC Question 15 Explanation

DISCUSSION: It’s important to note that the author did not say that Schmandt-Besserat is necessarily correct. Lines 9-11 show that researchers are still puzzled by the sudden appearance of abstract cuneiform. (“Has long puzzled” is present tense, meaning “from the past until today”)

And note the indeterminate language the author uses to describe Schmandt-Besserat’s ideas:

• “The tokens are identified by Denise Schmandt-Besserat” (line 17, instead of “were shown….to be”)
• “Schmandt-Besserat theorizes” (line 30)
• “Schmandt-Besserat suggests” (lines 44-45)

These small distinctions are incredibly important. I would say the author thinks Schmandt-Besserat is probably correct. But they are not saying Schmandt-Besserat is certainly correct, and that’s an important distinction.

Only answer A is aware of this distinction. Answers B-E incorrectly state that Schmandt-Besserat was proven correct. They’re therefore wrong for that reason alone (along with being worse in other ways).

___________

1. CORRECT. This covers all the material in the passage. Note that it also maintains the distinction that the author is merely presenting Schmandt-Besserat’s views. The author probably agrees with Schmandt-Besserat, but they aren’t presenting her views as indisputable truth.
2. None of the discoveries “confirm” Schmandt-Besserat. Instead, Schmandt-Besserat is making theories about all of the discoveries.
    
   Also, a “temple based grain and livestock pool” (lines 31-32) isn’t necessarily a contribution to temple itself. It could just be that the temple organized distribution of the community’s food (but didn’t keep it). And lines line 10 indicates that archaeologists are still puzzled (“has long puzzled” is present tense. Has long = “from the past until today”)
3. The discoveries didn’t prove Schmandt-Besserat correct. Instead, Schmandt-Besserat interpreted the discoveries.
4. The tokens didn’t evolve into modern languages. They evolved into an ancient writing system. Also, we don’t know Schmandt-Besserat is correct: the article is only presenting her theories.
5. Schmandt-Besserat didn’t say that abstract arts leads to abstract language. In fact, Schmandt-Besserat didn’t even say that the system became more abstract – later tokens were figurative! (lines 35-37). Also, this answer inappropriately suggests that Schmandt-Besserat was proven correct. The author merely presented her ideas.