LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q22

RC Question 22 Explanation

DISCUSSION: If you read lines 28-33, you’ll see that Schmandt-Besserat’s theory is that villagers were noting their contributions to a temple-based grain and livestock pool.

You need to weaken that by showing an alternate use for the tokens.

___________

1. Who cares? Different regions often have different styles, but objects can ultimately serve the same purpose. E.g. sandwiches are often different in different regions, but they’re still made to be eaten.
2. CORRECT. This weakens the theory. Instead of marking temple contribution, the tokens could have marked contributions amongst villagers themselves.
3. If you picked this, you probably focussed on lines 28-30, which mention “later known inscriptions of farm products”.
    
   This sentence served to identify what the tokens represented, not what they were used for. Remember, the early tokens were cones, spheres and pyramids – so Schmandt-Besserat has to prove these represented agricultural products.
    
   This answer is a clever trap. It doesn’t matter what later cuneiform tablets were used for (society can change a lot in 1000 years!). All that matters is that we can use these tablets to figure out what the tokens represented. If the use changed, but the meaning stayed the same, then later tablets are good evidence for meaning.
4. I’m not sure what this answer is getting at. The fact that we lack evidence of something doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen. Archaeological evidence is scarce!
5. This would strengthen Schmandt-Besserat’s ideas about regional pools. We’re trying to weaken them.