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. Mark for Review Based on the texts how would Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) most likely respond to the "conventional wisdom" presented in Text 1? A By conceding the importance of hierarchical systems but asserting the greater significance of decentralized collective societies B By disputing the idea that developments in so structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages C By acknowledging that hierarchical roles likely eren't a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture D By challenging the assumption that groupings of nunter-gatherer s were among the earliest forms of social structure

## Step 1<br />The problem involves comparing two texts. Text 1 presents a traditional view of human social evolution, suggesting that societies evolved in stages from small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands to hierarchical structures with the advent of agriculture. Text 2, on the other hand, challenges this linear progression model. It argues that human societies have always been socially flexible, alternating between hierarchical and collective systems with decentralized leadership.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />The question asks us to infer how Graeber and Wengrow (Text 2) would most likely respond to the "conventional wisdom" presented in Text 1. This involves understanding the main ideas of both texts and determining which option best represents the authors' likely response.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />Option A suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would agree with the importance of hierarchical systems but emphasize the greater significance of decentralized collective societies. This doesn't align with Text 2, which challenges the linear progression model.<br /><br />## Step 4<br />Option B suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would dispute the idea that developments in social structures have followed a linear progression through distinct stages. This aligns with Text 2, which challenges the linear progression model.<br /><br />## Step 5<br />Option C suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would acknowledge that hierarchical roles likely weren't a part of social systems before the rise of agriculture. This doesn't align with Text 2, which argues that hierarchical and collective systems existed simultaneously.<br /><br />## Step 6<br />Option D suggests that Graeber and Wengrow would challenge the assumption that groupings of hunter-gatherers were among the earliest forms of social structure. This doesn't align with Text 2, which argues that hunter-gatherer societies were socially flexible and could form both hierarchical and collective systems.