#20 - Concept Reference, Strengthen, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[Alexander Rothschild]

I don't know what the correct answer for this question is, but my best guess is that it is "A". If there was artifactual evidence near clearings that Mesolithic human populations processed animals for human consumption, then the resource-procurement model would be strengthen.

[Nicholas Noyes]

Hello,

I am trying to riddle out and think through why answer A works here....Is it because answer A would do the opposite of what the passage says in paragraph #1 in regard to archaeology evidence/support "Furthermore, artifactual evidence that preparation of animals for human consumption took place within or near such clearings is generally lacking."

So answer A would be providing evidence that artifactual evidence did exist (supporting archaeology). And in the passage since "the resource-procurement model" uses ethnography as evidence but cannot use archaeology because of a lack of evidence, Answer A is saying that archaeology can be used as well.

So if Archaeology can be accepted along with ethnography than "the author would be more likely to endorse the resource-procurement model"

Please tell me if I am on the right track here or if my reasoning is mistaken.

Thank You,
Nicholas

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Nicholas,

You're on exactly the right track! The author objects in the first paragraph (and the beginning of the second paragraph) that the resource-procurement model is lacking in solid archaeological evidence (it's "at best circumstantial"), and states that one such lack involves what you identified, "artifactual evidence" that preparing animals for food occurred in the clearings. You're also right that answer choice A would fill in that lacking evidence, which suggests the author would be more likely to favor the resource-procurement model (since the author rejected it for lacking that evidence).

Great job tracing out the explanation!

Jeremy