ETS OG 4th Edition RC

[alphaq4532]

In this question, to me, A and E were easy eliminations (No challenge presented in the passage, and definitely not an introduction to a hypothesis)

For B, couldn’t “cooperation” required for harvesting be an example of an “activity” mentioned in answer choice B? Further, conservation of firewood mentioned in line 11 be an example of the “cooperation” mentioned earlier? This made it difficult to eliminate B.

For C, the passage does mention that “Researchers note” (line 4), doesn’t this “note” make for a “finding” as mentioned in option C? Or does this “note” only pertain to seeds and pinons and not to the other cooperative activities therefore we don’t know whether or not these cooperative activities were research findings (or “notes”) or not?

For D, the claim made later in the passage is that the seeds and pinons could be considered private property, but how does this line provide support for the claim? I was of the opinion that the passage was still giving examples of cooperative activities. Is line “Seeds, however, could be cooked in private rather than in a pit hearth.” the connecting reference where this example is converted into a supporting evidence?

Any help would be appreciated!

[vince]

with B, you’ve gotta look at the sentence they’re highlighting - it makes no mention of cooperation or conservation. It just says the big pits had to be out in the open where everyone could see them. That is not an example of cooperation.

Same thing with C. The sentence doesn’t elaborate on a finding – even if we consider “seeds an nuts could be harvested by an individual” as a finding, “pits had to be in the open” hardly supports that.

When we get the “both of these factors” in line 12, we see that the claim “made hoarding foods cooked in pit hearths difficult” is supported by both of the factors.

[alphaq4532]

I see now. As always, thank you Vince.