Passage Summary: Some people think we don't eat certain animals because they are more useful alive, but an anthropologist argues it might be the other way around: we made them 'off-limits' for religious reasons first, and then found other jobs for them to do.

Conclusion: The theory that animal eating taboos originated solely for practical reasons is not necessarily correct.

Reasoning: It is possible that the taboos started for ritualistic reasons and that the practical benefits were a secondary result of the taboo already being in place.

Analysis: The anthropologist's method is to challenge a causal claim by offering an alternative sequence of events. While the researchers say 'Utility caused the Taboo,' the anthropologist suggests 'Taboo caused the Utility.' By showing that the evidence (the animals' usefulness) could actually be an effect rather than a cause, the anthropologist undermines the certainty of the researchers' conclusion. Focus on identifying the part of the argument where the speaker suggests that the relationship between the two factors might be the reverse of what was originally claimed.