Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution

Question

﻿Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution-the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming. One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

Which of the following, if true, would present the most serious challenge to the marginality hypothesis?

A. The earliest farmers subsisted on diets that consisted of roughly equal proportions of food gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities.

B. In the earliest agricultural settlements, the community's crops were often located many miles away from its members' living quarters.

C. Some of the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication.

D. Some archaeologists believe that, 3,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture, some humans lived in year-round, permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering.

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

﻿Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution-the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming. One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

To answer the question, we need to find the choice that "would present the most serious challenge to the marginality hypothesis." So, we go back to the passage to see exactly what the marginality hypothesis is, which is the following:

One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

Reviewing that hypothesis, we see that the basic idea is that human beings began domesticating plants and animals because they had to where they had moved to since there wasn't room for everyone in regions in which hunting and gathering were sufficient for survival.

A. The earliest farmers subsisted on diets that consisted of roughly equal proportions of food gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities.

This choice is in line with the marginality hypothesis. After all, it makes sense that, in regions "where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival," people might be able to get half of their food through hunting and gathering while finding it necessary to domesticate plants and animals to get the other half of what they needed.

Information in line with the hypothesis does not challenge it.

Eliminate.

B. In the earliest agricultural settlements, the community's crops were often located many miles away from its members' living quarters.

This information does not challenge the marginality hypothesis. After all, regardless of how far from living quarters crops were located, it could still be the case that people began domesticating plants and animals for the reasons outlined in the hypothesis.

Eliminate.

C. Some of the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication.

The point of the marginality hypothesis is that people needed to domesticate plants and animals because they had moved to regions that were not optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity. So, what this choice says does not conflict with the marginality hypothesis.

After all, the hypothesis involves people domesticating plants and animals in places other than the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity.

So, the hypothesis works fine even if this choice is true.

Eliminate.

D. Some archaeologists believe that, 3,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture, some humans lived in year-round, permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering.

The passage describes the neolithic revolution that the marginality hypothesis is about as "the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming."

So, even if it's true that some humans lived in permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering, the marginality hypothesis could still work because this fact about "some humans" doesn't change what's known about the neolithic revolution, which involved "large numbers" of humans not only settling in villages but also farming.

So, this choice doesn't challenge the marginality hypothesis.

Eliminate.

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.

This choice challenges the marginality hypothesis.

After all, the whole point of the hypothesis is that people began began domesticating plants and animals because they had to where they lived since, in those regions, hunting and gathering were not sufficient for survival.

So, evidence suggesting that plant and animal domestication began in regions with optimal conditions for hunting and gathering would indicate that the hypothesis is incorrect. After all, if regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering, then the people who began plant and animal domestication clearly had not been forced to "move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival."

The correct answer is (E).

gmatophobia · Answer

The "marginality hypothesis" states that 
  early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best 
 As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

We have to weaken the marginality hypothesis -

A. The earliest farmers subsisted on diets that consisted of roughly equal proportions of food gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities.

This statement doesn't weaken the hypothesis. The statement tells us that both foods gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities had equal contributions to the diet of the earliest farmers. The farmers could have also gathered food through agriculture in regions where hunting and gathering were best. Hence, the statement doesn't weaken the hypothesis, and we can eliminate this option.

B. In the earliest agricultural settlements, the community's crops were often located many miles away from its members' living quarters.

The information doesn't weaken the argument and is out of the scope of the presented hypothesis. We can eliminate B.

C. Some of the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication.

According to the hypothesis, early human beings lived in regions where hunting and gathering were best, and as populations increased, some people moved to neighboring regions where they domesticated plants and animals. Hence, these two regions need not be the same and need not share the same characteristics. We can eliminate this option.

D. Some archaeologists believe that, 3,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture, some humans lived in year-round, permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering.

Except for the addition of the timeframe, this option repeats the information already presented by the marginality hypothesis. The hypothesis states that early human beings first hunted and gathered food and later domesticated plants and animals. Hence, the statement doesn't provide any additional reason to weaken the hypothesis. We can eliminate this option.

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.

This option weakens the hypothesis. The "marginality hypothesis" predicts that first early human beings would have lived in regions where hunting and gathering were best and only when populations increased, some people moved to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals was necessary for survival. However, this option states otherwise. It states that we have evidence to support that in regions where plant and animal domestication began the conditions for hunting and gathering were optimal. Hence, the statement reverses the order - plant, and animal domestication came first, making those regions optimal for hunting and gathering.

Option E

Paras96 · Answer

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the Neolithic revolution, regions, where plant and animal domestication began, had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.

If E is true the premise that, "As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival" will fall.

TOBEATHATPERSON · Answer

Hi i have one question. I thought that domestication is necessary for neighboring regions. But E saids regions where plant and anmial domestican began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering. So it can weakean. But I can't understand that you said

"After all, if regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering, then the people who began plant and animal domestication clearly had not been forced to "move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival." 
would you give more explanation? thanks...
 MartyMurray

MartyMurray · Answer

According to the passage, the marginality hypothesis involves the idea that the reason why early humans began plant and animal domestication was that "As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival."

In other words, the idea is that some people weren't able to live in the prime regions for hunting and gathering and thus had to begin farming.

So, my point is that what (E) says indicates that that idea is incorrect. If regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering, then clearly, the people who began plant and animal domestication had not been forced to move to regions where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

TOBEATHATPERSON · Answer

Sended some additional points via chat
the point is that hunting ++ -> competition -> other region (domestication for survival in other region)
competitive is because of hunting so another factor (E says domestication began area is optimal so) domestication can be in these hunting areas (but not 100 %) so there will be no forced movement right?
Thanks for helping  MartyMurray

Engineer1 · Answer

MartyMurray  Thank you for the analysis. I understand why E is correct. But I cannot convince myself as to why C is wrong. I am requesting either of you  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATGuruNY  to review and help explain again. Thank you.

One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

I am trying to weaken the "marginality hypothesis" in this way. Basically, population increase did not lead to the competition of resources and movement of people to neighboring areas, but the places they had settled in, did not have optimal conditions for plant and animal domestication to begin with. (Population increase is not the reason, "something else (in option C) is"). Hence, C is correct too. Unless my way of thinking is completely wrong, which I think is after reading your explanation (Marty Murray).

GMATGuruNY · Answer

One way to eliminate C:
Generally, answer choices that include "some" will be insufficient to strengthen or weaken a conclusion.
some = not none = at least one
Implication:
For the purposes of the GMAT, we can interpret  some  to mean AT LEAST ONE.
C, rephrased with  at least one  instead of  some :
 At least one region...would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication. 
The statement above could refer to only one region.
As a result, it is far too wimpy to affect the conclusion.
Eliminate C.

KarishmaB · Answer

We are looking for an explanation of "Why did people start settling and  farming?" "Why didn't they just continue hunting and gathering moving from one place to another?"

One hypothesis to answer this is MH.
"Marginality hypothesis" (MH) - Early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival (which means that hunting and gathering opportunities would be limited here so people were forced to farm)

What would weaken this hypothesis?

A. The earliest farmers subsisted on diets that consisted of roughly equal proportions of food gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities.

Doesn't weaken the hypothesis. MH states that agri was a necessity there; it doesn't mean that hunting was no possible. It could very easily be the case that hunting did not provide enough nourishment. 
 
  B. In the earliest agricultural settlements, the community's crops were often located many miles away from its members' living quarters.

Irrelevant how far the farms were from the houses.

C. Some of the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication.

We are not discussing why hunting and gathering continued. We are discussing why hunting was not continued and farming started. MH says that excess population were forced to move to other areas where hunting was not optimal and hence they were forced to start farming. Saying that the hunting grounds were not optimal for farming is illogical. Farming in regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity was never suggested by MH. Not correct.

D. Some archaeologists believe that, 3,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture, some humans lived in year-round, permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering.

Irrelevant.

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.

Correct. This says that the regions where farming was done were great for hunting etc too. Then MH doesn't make sense. According to MH, the expanding population moved to areas not suitable for hunting and started farming there out of necessity. But if those areas were optimal for hunting too, then it means the people chose to farm instead of being forced to farm. Hence MH breaks apart here.

Answer (E)

kittle · Answer

Hey  MartyMurray  - The argument asks what caused the movement and the hypothesis is about "competition of resources" led people to move to neighbouring community. How does E tackle that?

MartyMurray · Answer

(E) does not tackle anything having to do with movement. At the same time, to weaken the argument, (E) doesn't have to address whether or why people moved.

The conclusion of the argument is not about whether there was movement or what caused any movement that may have occurred. Rather, it's about "what caused the neolithic revolution," which is not the movement but rather "the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings  began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming ."

So, we need to weaken the case for believing, basically, that competition for resources and movement that resulted from such competition was the cause of farming.

Notice that people could have moved because of competition for resources, and if the areas to which they moved "had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering," as (E) says, then moving to those areas does not make sense as the cause of the neolithic revolution. After all, in that case, even if they had moved, they would not have had to farm. They could have just continued hunting and gathering in the new area.

Gemmie · Answer

A. The earliest farmers subsisted on diets that consisted of roughly equal proportions of food gathered through agriculture and hunting-and-gathering activities. 
This option suggests that early farmers still relied heavily on hunting and gathering. While it may complicate the narrative, it doesn't directly challenge the idea that farming began in marginal areas where hunting and gathering were less viable.

B. In the earliest agricultural settlements, the community's crops were often located many miles away from its members' living quarters. 
This option is more about the logistics of farming rather than the reasons why people started farming. It doesn't directly challenge the marginality hypothesis.

C. Some of the regions that were optimal for hunting-and-gathering activity would not have been optimal for plant and animal domestication. 
This supports the marginality hypothesis, as it suggests that people would have had to move to different, less optimal regions to begin farming.

D. Some archaeologists believe that, 3,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture, some humans lived in year-round, permanent settlements but supported themselves by hunting and gathering. 
This suggests that settled life and hunting-gathering could coexist for a long time before agriculture began. It doesn't directly contradict the idea that farming began in marginal areas.

E. Evidence suggests that, at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had optimal conditions for hunting and gathering.  
This challenges the marginality hypothesis because it suggests that domestication and farming began in regions that were already optimal for hunting and gathering, contradicting the idea that people moved to marginal areas where they had no choice but to farm.

MalachiKeti · Answer

e. Just because there were optimal conditions doesnt mean both could be practised - after all there would be competition amongst the resources still because of increasing population

a. farmers had diets 50-50 why? that means they didn't move because hunting gathering had become too competitive as they were still able to sustain 50% of their diets with same...so maybe a different reason would have happened?
 AjiteshArun   KarishmaB

KarishmaB · Answer

Optimal conditions for hunting gathering implies enough game. If resources are optimal, it means they are optimal for the need.

Lands neighboring to the best areas would not provide as much as the "best areas" and hence would be sub-optimal. Farming could have then become essential and MH would have still made sense.

MalachiKeti · Answer

AjiteshArun  any views here?
I need help in solving these two options as well as what the right answer choice should help point out?

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi MalachiKeti,

The question talks about the cause of the neolithic revolution ("the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming).

The "marginality hypothesis" tells us that:
1. Early human beings would have lived in  regions where the hunting and gathering were  best  .

2. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources.

3. This competition would make  some  people "move to neighboring regions,  where domesticating plants and animals would be  necessary  for survival ".

So competition caused some people to move to areas where ~farming was necessary.

Option E tells us that at the beginning of the neolithic revolution, regions where plant and animal domestication began had   optimal  conditions for hunting and gathering . So some people (the excess population perhaps) moved from the "best" areas to the "optimal" areas? That's like saying they moved from the best areas for hunting and gathering to the best areas for hunting and gathering. There would have been no need for them to transition to farming. That is, domesticating plants and animals would not have been necessary for survival.

As for option A, remember that they were nomads earlier, so a 50% hunting-and-gathering diet would be a drop (from 100%). In other words, they went from 0% agriculture to 50% agriculture. This is consistent with the transition to farming/agriculture from hunting and gathering, and therefore doesn't hurt the marginality hypothesis.

MalachiKeti · Answer

The option A rebuttal is fantastic!
I think I finally get it

If we read this line :
  As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, 
leading some people to move to neighboring regions, 
 where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.
  If domesticating plants and animals is necessary for survival - it implies hunting and gathering is not supported here and hence the only options for survival are domestication- hence E is exact opposite and weakener.

Thanks for another fantastic way to help ease things. Best explanation!

beingiamit · Answer

This looks like a cause and effect question. Cause: Competition for resources, Effect: leading some people to move to neighboring regions.

Option E says: Cause was optimal conditions for hunting and gathering led to Effect: Giving up nomadic life.

Not sure if its optimal reasoning, but this is how it looks to me.

MS26 · Answer

Hypothesis " early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best" and would have moved to neighboring regions due to competition for resources & in the new location domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.

A : This is not challenging/weakening the hypothesis
B : This choice is not mentioning about the dependency on hunting and gathering so by this choice we are not sure whether they are still dependent on hunting gathering or not
C : This strengthening the hypothesis 
D: If any thing this choice is doing is strengthening the hypothesis.
E:  If this is true then the competition for resources wont happen cause now people can do farming as well apart from hunting and gathering at the same location  
Answer E

Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution

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

Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution

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