Based on new evidence, anthropologists now believe that during the Neo

Question

Based on new evidence, anthropologists now believe that during the Neolithic Age there was a “white revolution,” when Middle Eastern milk-drinking farmers conquered the hunter-gatherer tribes of Europe, and set up permanent settlements where the hunter-gatherer communities used to exist. Previously, experts thought that representatives of the Middle Easterners only traveled through Europe and brought their ideas like evangelists, converting the indigenous people to a new way of life. This new evidence finally proves that the transition of Europe to a farming and milk-drinking society was much more violent and transformative than thought before.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) a discovery of several Middle Eastern villages in northern Europe with tools that show its members ate only vegetables and fruits and never raised cows

(B) evidence that several hunter-gatherer societies drank milk long before the Middle Eastern farming communities migrated into the region

(C) the discovery of land scarred from battle of that period as well as mass graves of the Middle Eastern farmers and hunter-gatherers

(D) evidence that villages of Middle Easterners were established near the hunter-gatherer communities and trade existed between the two types of communities

(E) the discovery of children with genetic markers from both hunter-gatherer and farming peoples, proving that there was sexual intermingling

KaurPrabhleen · Answer

The answer is D.

A weakening statement would contradict or disprove the argument that it was a violent transition. 
For answer B, just because the Europeans drank milk before the Middle Easterners arrived does not mean that their society did not go through the later violent conversion mentioned in the argument. Answer D says that the Middle Easterners had settlements next to the hunter-gatherers, and they engaged in peaceful trade, which weakens the argument that the transition was violent and transformative.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: D

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task. 
This is a Weaken question. It tells you that you must pay close attention to the bases for the argument and discover how a counterargument might weaken it.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind. 
This is an anthropological argument saying that there is a new belief that the “white revolution” occurred due to one society conquering another in a “violent and transformative” manner, while it was previously thought to be a more peaceful process.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for. 
A weakening statement would contradict or discredit this argument, proving that in fact it was as previously thought, not violent but a peaceful transition that in fact it was as previously thought, not violent but a peaceful transition to a milk-based society.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice. 
Answer A talks specifically of northern Europe and not the wider continent. Also, milk may have still been part of the Middle Eastern diet even if someone else raised the cows. But more importantly, the transition in Europe still could have been violent. For answer B, just because the Europeans drank milk before the Middle Easterners arrived does not mean that their society did not go through the later violent conversion mentioned in the argument, so this answer fails to weaken the argument. Answer C actually strengthens the argument, proving that violence occurred at the time, and you are looking for a statement that weakens the argument. Answer D says that the Middle Easterners had settlements next to the hunter-gatherers, and they engaged in peaceful trade. Such coexistence and peaceful trade definitely weakens the argument that the transition was violent and transformative. And finally, the evidence of “sexual intermingling” mentioned in answer E does not rule out the possibility that the hunter-gatherer society went through the cataclysmic conversion, so the correct choice is answer D.

Shrey1 · Answer

The conclusion of the statement is, "transition of Europe to a farming and milk-drinking society was much more violent and transformative".

What if, that transition never happened and Europe was already a farming and milk-drinking society? Proving that would be a weakener for this conclusion. That's what B does.

IMO, D doesn't seem to weaken the conclusion. As there can be trade between 2 communities it's not necessary that there will be no violence which would follow.

AjiteshArun   zhanbo   generis   GMATNinja  Can you please help me clear my understanding here ?

zhanbo · Answer

Hi,  Shrey~

Here is how I evaluated options (B) and (D) and ultimately chose (D).

(B)  It only mentions "several hunter-gatherer societies". They may not be representative of the hunter-gatherer societies as a whole. 
What's more, it only mentions milk-drinking aspect of the conclusion; they had not transitioned into permanent farming, which the passage addresses (in addition to milk-drinking as a concurrent event).

(D)   This option offers a non-violent explanation, i.e. trade rather than conquest, for the transition to a farming and milk-drinking society.
What's more, this evidence does not diametrically contradict with "new evidence" cited in the passage. 
The co-existance of both villages and communities could have easily been (mis)interpreted as conquest thousands of years later, when only limited historical remains are available for conjecture. The archeological finding that permanent Middle Easterner villages and the hunter-gatherer communities were in close proximity could be interpreted either as a violant take-over or a mutually beneficial trading relationship. 
So, (D) can offer an alternative explanation to the "new evidence" that gives rise to the conclusion, thereby weakening the argument. 
(Also note it does not add "several" before villages, which, as in (B), may reduces its weakening strength.)

Hope it helps!
Zhanbo

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi Shrey~,

I think there are a few problems with option B:

1.  I agree with zhanbo that option B is limited to "several" hunter-gatherer societies (that drank milk before ME communities migrated into the region). The argument is about all of Europe, so the discovery of some hunter-gatherer societies that drank milk isn't a very strong weakener.

2.  Technically, the argument never directly links the "white revolution" to milk. Some test takers, especially Indians, may be very familiar with  the term , but there is, at best, only an indirect link in this argument between "white revolution" and milk.

To be clear, the argument is almost certainly trying to link the two. This point is just to say that it doesn't make that connection explicit.

3.  The argument assumes that the transition took place. The only point of contention is whether that transition was much more violent and transformative than previously thought. An option that helps us believe that the transition never took place would weaken the argument, but option B doesn't really do that very well (point  1 ).

Option D, on the other hand, tells us that the ME villages were established  near  the hunter-gatherer communities, which means that it may not have been a conquest, and the existence of trade helps us believe that things weren't as violent as the author of this argument may think.

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi Bunuel,

Is this really an official LSAT question? Or is it an LSAT-like question? I ask because it's tagged "LSAT (Official)", but the wording isn't very precise. Also, a Google search shows that this question may be from "McGraw-Hill Education LSAT 2017 [Cross-platform prep ...".

Shrey1 · Answer

Thanks  zhanbo  and  AjiteshArun , these explanations make it very clear to me.

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Hi  zhanbo !

I went through your reply for option (D)

I just wanted to say that you are assuming that the inference (by the anthropologist) from the new evidence (that the takeover was violent) was because the hunter gatherer communities and middle eastern villages were in close proximity

how do you know that the anthropologists inferred what they did based on this variable, it can be that they inferred the violent take over due to some other factor

if it were given to us that the close proximity b/w the 2 communities led anthropologist to infer a violent take over, then maybe your explanation made sense

but we do not know that

communities can coexist and yet there can be violence

you can trade with someone but after sometime to convert these hunter gatherer communities to farming and milk drinking society, you can end the trade and use violence to do the conversion

Based on new evidence, anthropologists now believe that during the Neo

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Based on new evidence, anthropologists now believe that during the Neo

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards