A high–calorie diet providing adequate fats was a crucial requirement for the evolution of the anatomically modern hu...

kens on June 11, 2020

June 2012 SEC 4 Q18

I might be overthinking, but I assumed that since shore environments have most abundant and reliable food resources the expenditure of calories could have been easily supplemented? Also, E doesn't compare the shore to woodland and savanna? Please help! Thanks

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on June 13, 2020

Hi @kenken,

Thanks for the question! So I’ll answer your second question first, and say that although (E) doesn’t explicitly compare the shore to woodland and savanna environments, when it compares “shore environments” to “other environments,” that should be interpreted here as shore environments vs. all other environments, including both woodland areas and savannas. So the explicit comparison doesn’t need to be made, since they’re included in the “other” category.

Now, as to your first question, it’s possible that the expenditure of calories could’ve been supplemented, but the question is could they have been easily supplemented? We truly can’t say that based on the information provided. Remember that we’re looking for the best answer on the LSAT, and here, it’s pretty clear that (E) does the most work to resolve the paradox, so we pick it as the answer. (E) opens up the possibility that net caloric intake in the woodland areas and savannas is higher, since it would’ve taken fewer calories to get food, and that possibility helps resolve the paradox.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Emil-Kunkin on July 24, 2022

Hi @mak16153,

I don't think we necessarily have to assume that the savannas and woodlands would have been able to sustain a high calorie/fat diet. For a paradox question, we are looking for something that would best explain an apparent discrepancy. E does explain why most of the develop,ent happened away from the coastline. While the story that we tell in E would look much weaker if we were told that it is impossible to have a high fat and calorie diet in the woodland, we are not actually told that. The right answer does not have to be airtight, just make the story make sense.

mak16153 on July 24, 2022

By choosing E, we are essentially assuming that the woodland/savanna areas already had the food resources to support a high-calorie, fat diet? Is it okay to make that assumption here for a Paradox question? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions on the LSAT! Please explain. Thanks.