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

Kenji on June 11 at 08:07AM

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

1 Reply

Shunhe on June 13 at 11:20PM

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.