DISCUSSION: To answer this, you should think about which theory the author is arguing against. The resource procurement theory says that woodland clearings had an economic use (lines 7-8). The author disagrees with this. So, when the author says that woodland clearings may have been entirely social, they mean “entirely not economic”. It’s a way of contrasting their theory against the resource procurement theory.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. Social is used to contrast the author’s theory against the economic use of the resource procurement theory.
- Unique and universal to human societies? When is the last time you helped create a woodland clearing? And what of desert societies – clearly they don’t create woodland clearings.
So, woodland clearings are not universal phenomena for humans.
- This is using a different definition of social, the kind you’d use in “group social activities”. This sort of bonding wasn’t mentioned in the passage.
“Intersections being convenient spots for resting” (lines 57-58) doesn’t mean multiple people rested there at the same time.
- The passive voice in “Intersections become convenient spots for resting” (lines 57-58) suggests the author viewed these clearings as fortunate byproducts of pathway creation. They didn’t think that woodland clearings were purposefully created in order to help society. (Paths may have been purposefully created, but “purely social phenomena” referred to clearings.)
- Rubbish. The author didn’t mention Mesolithic culture beyond the idea that these peoples may have feared the forest. We know nothing of their art, daily life, etc. And lines 8-17 show the author thinks we almost entirely lack evidence of Mesolithic people’s economic activity.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions