Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution-the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution-the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming. One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival.
Which of the following, if true, would present the most serious challenge to the marginality hypothesis?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Archaeologists have long debated what caused the neolithic revolution-the major changes that occurred when large numbers of prehistoric human beings began to give up the nomadic life in favor of settling in villages and farming. |
|
| One view, the "marginality hypothesis," maintains that early human beings would have lived in regions where the hunting and gathering were best. |
|
| As populations increased, however, so would competition for resources, leading some people to move to neighboring regions, where domesticating plants and animals would be necessary for survival. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage starts by presenting a historical debate, then introduces one specific theory (marginality hypothesis) and explains how it works through a cause-and-effect chain.
Main Conclusion:
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's purely descriptive, explaining what the marginality hypothesis claims about why the neolithic revolution occurred.
Logical Structure:
This is an explanatory passage rather than an argument. It presents the marginality hypothesis as: population growth in good areas → resource competition → migration to poor areas → necessity driving agricultural development.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce belief in the marginality hypothesis
Precision of Claims
The hypothesis makes specific claims about sequence (best areas first), causation (population pressure forced migration), and necessity (farming was required for survival in marginal areas)
Strategy
To weaken the marginality hypothesis, we need to find evidence that contradicts its core logic: that farming started because people were forced into marginal areas due to population pressure. We can attack this by showing farming started in good areas, that population pressure wasn't the driver, or that the timing/sequence was different than claimed
This tells us that early farmers got food from both agriculture and hunting/gathering in roughly equal proportions. However, this doesn't challenge the marginality hypothesis at all. The hypothesis doesn't make any claims about what percentage of food came from farming versus hunting/gathering - it only explains WHY farming started (due to being forced into marginal areas). People could still have been forced into marginal areas and supplemented their farming with whatever hunting/gathering was available there. This choice is irrelevant to the core logic of the hypothesis.
This describes the physical layout of early agricultural settlements, noting that crops were often located far from living quarters. But the marginality hypothesis is about WHY farming started and WHERE it started, not about how early farmers organized their settlements geographically. Whether crops were near or far from homes doesn't tell us anything about whether people were forced into marginal areas due to population pressure. This is completely off-topic.
This actually supports the marginality hypothesis rather than weakening it. If optimal hunting/gathering regions weren't good for farming, this reinforces the idea that people in good hunting/gathering areas would have stayed there, while those forced into different (marginal) areas would have had to develop farming. This aligns perfectly with the hypothesis's logic that farming developed out of necessity in less optimal areas.
This discusses permanent settlements that existed 3,000 years before agriculture began, where people lived year-round but still hunted and gathered. While interesting, this doesn't challenge the marginality hypothesis's explanation for why farming eventually started. The hypothesis doesn't claim that all early humans were nomadic - it specifically explains the transition TO farming. Pre-agricultural settlements don't contradict the population pressure mechanism that supposedly led to farming.
This directly attacks the foundation of the marginality hypothesis by showing that farming began in regions with optimal hunting and gathering conditions, not in marginal areas. If plant and animal domestication started in the BEST areas for hunting/gathering, then the entire causal chain of the hypothesis collapses. The hypothesis requires that farming started because people were forced into worse areas - but if farming actually began in the optimal areas, then population pressure forcing migration to marginal areas cannot be the explanation. This completely undermines the theory's core logic.