Free Practice Question
CR · Critical Reasoning
sub-505
Inference
The only fossilized bones of large prey found in and around settlements of early humans bear teeth marks of nonhuman predators on areas of the skeleton that had the most meat, and cut marks made by humans on the areas that had the least meat. The predators that hunted large prey invariably ate the meatiest parts of the carcasses, leaving uneaten remains behind.
If the information above is true, it provides the most support for which one of the following?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowA
Early humans were predators of small prey, not of large prey.\n
B
Early humans ate fruits and edible roots as well as meat.
C
Early humans would have been more effective hunters of large prey if they had hunted in large groups rather than individually.\n
Early humans were not hunters of large prey but scavenged the uneaten remains of prey killed by other predators.
Correct
E
Early humans were nomadic, and their settlements followed the migratory patterns of predators of large prey.
See the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Explanation
Preview
Official Explanation
Official
Premise 1: Fossilized bones of large prey near early human settlements have teeth marks from nonhuman predators on the meatiest parts, and cut marks from humans on the less meaty parts.
Premise 2: Predators that hunt large prey always eat the meatiest parts and leave the rest behind.
What’s the logical conclusion?
If humans made cut marks only on what was left after the predators were done, they likely didn’t kill the prey themselves. Instead, they used the remains left by other predators.
This points most directly to scavenging, not hunting.
Correct Answer:
(D) Early humans were not hunters of large prey but scavenged the uneaten remains of prey killed by other predators.
✅ Elimination Breakdown:
(A) Early humans were predators of small prey, not of large prey.
⟶ Too strong.
There’s no mention of small prey at all, so this goes beyond the scope of the evidence.
(A)
(B) Early humans ate fruits and edible roots as well as meat.
⟶ Irrelevant.
The argument is only about bones of large prey, not other food sources.
(B)
(C) Early humans would have been more effective hunters of large prey if they had hunted in large groups rather than individually.…
Premise 2: Predators that hunt large prey always eat the meatiest parts and leave the rest behind.
What’s the logical conclusion?
If humans made cut marks only on what was left after the predators were done, they likely didn’t kill the prey themselves. Instead, they used the remains left by other predators.
This points most directly to scavenging, not hunting.
Correct Answer:
(D) Early humans were not hunters of large prey but scavenged the uneaten remains of prey killed by other predators.
✅ Elimination Breakdown:
(A) Early humans were predators of small prey, not of large prey.
⟶ Too strong.
There’s no mention of small prey at all, so this goes beyond the scope of the evidence.
(A)
(B) Early humans ate fruits and edible roots as well as meat.
⟶ Irrelevant.
The argument is only about bones of large prey, not other food sources.
(B)
(C) Early humans would have been more effective hunters of large prey if they had hunted in large groups rather than individually.…
Read the full explanation
Sign in for free to see the complete step-by-step solution to this question.
Comments
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts and help others understand it better.
Sign in to commentWhat this question tests
What it tests
Whether you can draw a conclusion that must follow from the stated facts.
Common trap
Choosing an option that could be true or is likely true — inference answers must be guaranteed by the passage.
Details
Difficulty
sub-505
Type
CR