Text 1Conventional wisdom long held that human social systems evolved in stages, beginning with hunter-gatherers forming small bands of members...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Conventional wisdom long held that human social systems evolved in stages, beginning with hunter-gatherers forming small bands of members with roughly equal status. The shift to agriculture about 12,000 years ago sparked population growth that led to the emergence of groups with hierarchical structures: associations of clans first, then chiefdoms, and finally, bureaucratic states.
Text 2
In a 2021 book, anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow maintain that humans have always been socially flexible, alternately forming systems based on hierarchy and collective ones with decentralized leadership. The authors point to evidence that as far back as 50,000 years ago some hunter-gatherers adjusted their social structures seasonally, at times dispersing in small groups but also assembling into communities that included esteemed individuals.
Based on the texts, how would Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) most likely respond to the 'conventional wisdom' presented in Text 1?
By conceding the importance of hierarchical systems but asserting the greater significance of decentralized collective societies
By disputing the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages
By acknowledging that hierarchical roles likely weren't a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture
By challenging the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: "Conventional wisdom long held that human social systems evolved in stages, beginning with hunter-gatherers forming small bands of members with roughly equal status." |
|
| "The shift to agriculture about 12,000 years ago sparked population growth that led to the emergence of groups with hierarchical structures:" |
|
| "associations of clans first, then chiefdoms, and finally, bureaucratic states." |
|
| Text 2: "In a 2021 book, anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow maintain that humans have always been socially flexible," |
|
| "alternately forming systems based on hierarchy and collective ones with decentralized leadership." |
|
| "The authors point to evidence that as far back as 50,000 years ago some hunter-gatherers adjusted their social structures seasonally," |
|
| "at times dispersing in small groups but also assembling into communities that included esteemed individuals." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Text 1 presents the conventional view of linear social evolution through distinct stages, while Text 2 challenges this with evidence for continuous social flexibility throughout human history.
Argument Flow: The first text establishes the traditional narrative of social evolution as a step-by-step progression triggered by agriculture. The second text directly counters this by arguing for perpetual social flexibility, using much older evidence to show that hierarchical and collective systems have always coexisted and alternated rather than following a linear sequence.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? How Graeber and Wengrow would respond to the conventional wisdom from Text 1.
What type of answer do we need? Their specific challenge or disagreement with the traditional view.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
The key conflict here is between two fundamentally different views of human social development. Text 1 says social systems evolved in clear stages - from egalitarian hunter-gatherers, through agriculture, to increasingly complex hierarchies. Text 2 says this linear view is wrong because humans have always been socially flexible, switching between hierarchical and collective systems throughout history.
Graeber and Wengrow's main challenge isn't about which type of society is better, or when hierarchy first appeared, or whether hunter-gatherers existed early on. Their core disagreement is with the idea that social development followed a predictable, step-by-step progression.
By conceding the importance of hierarchical systems but asserting the greater significance of decentralized collective societies
✗ Incorrect
This suggests they're making a value judgment about which type of society is more important. But their argument isn't about significance - it's about challenging the linear progression model.
By disputing the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages
✓ Correct
This directly captures their core disagreement with Text 1's linear stage model. Graeber and Wengrow argue against this linear progression, saying humans have always alternated between different social systems.
By acknowledging that hierarchical roles likely weren't a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture
✗ Incorrect
This would mean they agree that hierarchy came only after agriculture. But they actually argue the opposite - that hierarchical roles existed much earlier (50,000 years ago).
By challenging the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure
✗ Incorrect
They don't challenge that hunter-gatherers were among the earliest social forms. Their disagreement is with the linear progression model, not with the existence of early hunter-gatherer societies.