Data from which one of the following sources would be most relevant to evaluating Olsen's hypothesis?
Mazenon July 11, 2022
Reasons for eliminating D please
Hi
I had hard time eliminating D - "analysis of mortality patterns in the remains of any other species of animal found at Botai sites."
I struggled to eliminate D because of the following reasoning: If the analysis of mortality patterns in the remains of any other species [sheep or goat, which were not ridden] found at the Boat sites matched that of the remains of the horses at the Botai site, then Olsen's hypothesis is undermined because sheep an goats were used for their meat, not for being ridden.
On the other hand, if the analysis of the remains of other species contrasted with that of the analysis of the horses, then that would support Olsen's hypothesis.
Using other species of animals is not out of scope because the author uses Olsen's own analysis of other species, specifically, dogs, sheep, and goats to make a comparative point!
Please help.
Thank you
Mazen
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I agree that the analysis of other species is not out of scope (and generally speaking, I don't know if "scope" is a useful way to narrow down answers- every answer choice is at least tangentially related to the passage). However, I don't think that the mortality patterns of other animals would have been helpful to determine if her hypothesis about riding horses would have been correct.
According to the pattern, mortality patterns are useful because they tell us whether or not the herds are domesticated- or in the case of horses, if they were ridden. The idea that mortality patterns can tell us if a herd was domestic seems to be well established from the passage (i.e. not something the author is trying to prove). While data showing that other animals in Botai sites were domestic or not would be useful in determining if those animals were domestic or wild, I don't think that would have any bearing on whether the horses were ridden or not. It would only tell us about the other animals, not the horses. We know nothing about a culture's interactions with horses based on whether that culture domesticated sheep.
Mazenon July 12, 2022
Hi Emil,
I'm sorry I did not explain myself well.
The mortality patterns are about sex and age. Matching mortality patterns in these terms would weaken Olsen's hypothesis, while a mismatch between them would strengthen it.
My reasoning is: if we analyze the mortality patterns of animals (other than horses) in terms of their sex and age and we found them matching the patterns of the horses in similar terms (sex and age), since we know that the other animals were used for food and not for riding, than such similarity between their patterns and that of the horses would undermine Olsen's hypothesis. It would NOT disprove her hypothesis, it would weaken it is all I am saying.
However, if the patterns do not match, then that would strengthen Olsen's hypothesis, because riding the horses would be the factor explaining the discrepancy in the mismatch.
Having said that, as I am re-explaining my first post I reread your post. You invoke the phrase " well established in the passage." I read the passage, especially paragraph 2. A match in the patterns of mortality would contradict the facts that are "well established" in paragraph two of the passage, lines 19 through 30. That is a BIG NO NO; we stick with the facts of the passage. We eliminate answer-choices with factually contradictory statements unless in instances of the section of LR where the question stem says "if true," I think????? This is not the case here; this is more of an evaluative assessment!
I think it's time for the "professor test." I'm not sure, I have to reflect on this for a little while!
