The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute

[RonPurewal]

Hello Ron,
Excellent analogy set above. I really like the way you connected the situation with a person sitting on a chair and who has been shot with a gun. It really helps you connect with the idea in the question.

^^ thanks for the kind words.

I've one question w.r.t option (B). If there really are no other instruments that used a diatonic scale and is of an earlier date than that of flute, can't we establish that diatonic musical scale must have been developed thousands of years ago?
Thanks

choice B just says that there AREN'T any other similar instruments that are as old as the one described.

in fact, the exact OPPOSITE of this statement -- "there are lots and lots and lots of similarly old instruments that were also capable of playing a diatonic scale" -- would make it MUCH more likely that the diatonic scale is that old.

if you can strengthen a claim by saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of one of the answer choices, then, clearly that choice doesn't help the claim.

[JbhB682]

Hi - I understand how A/B/C/D are not the right answer but i really dont understand why E is an assumption as well

E says (reworded per my understanding) -- The bone of the leg of the cave bear is long enough to make the flute capable of a complete diatonic scale

Question 1) even if the bone is long enough to make the flute, how does this prove the flute was used and developed 1000 years ago

q1) it could be that the cave bear was living 1 million years ago ...so this makes our conclusion wrong which says, its used and developed for 1000 years ago ...it could have been used more than 1000 years ago

-q2) what does "length" of the bone being long enough have to do with proving this conclusion

please assist

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Be careful! Answer E is not an assumption, but a strengthener. Check the definitions for these two question types in the Strategy Guide.

Question 1) even if the bone is long enough to make the flute, how does this prove the flute was used and developed 1000 years ago
If we knew that the bone was long enough to play the whole scale, it wouldn't prove the conclusion, but it would make it stronger. Also, you need to be much more precise in pinpointing the conclusion. Here it is: 'the diatonic musical scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.' So, sure, the bear could have lived a million years ago, the flute could be much older.

Question 2 What does "length" of the bone being long enough have to do with proving this conclusion?
If you need 3 holes to play 3 notes, then you need 7 holes to play 7 notes! And this requires a longer bone.

By the way, this is a real situation and an interesting one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_Flute

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts -

Why is A incorrect?

If the bone flute was the only instrument made by Neanderthals, it shows the bone flute was indeed made by Neanderthals

I thought the fact that the flute was made by Neanderthals made it a bit more likely that the diatonic scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

Reasoning :

Neanderthals have been around for millions of years. If Neanderthals did develop and build the flute per option A : its more likely that the diatonic scale was used far before the renaissance period (renaissance period is only 500 years old)

Given the flute has the diatonic scale and per option A -- the flute has been made by Neanderthals - its a bit more likely the diatonic scale was used far before the renaissance period

Where is the gap in my thinking

[esledge]

Why is A incorrect?

If the bone flute was the only instrument made by Neanderthals, it shows the bone flute was indeed made by Neanderthals

I thought the fact that the flute was made by Neanderthals made it a bit more likely that the diatonic scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

This choice is two (speculative) steps away from the conclusion. In other words, (A) makes it marginally more likely that this particular bone flute was indeed made by Neanderthals, but the big, important, final step in the logic (that the diatonic scale was in use during Neanderthal times) goes unaddressed by choice (A). In this regard, (E) is much closer to the conclusion because it directly addresses the diatonic scale (and places its use at a certain time).

Note a couple of wording clues:

(A) is restrictive (only musical instrument) of something that doesn't have to be restricted for the conclusion to hold: It would be ok, even good, if Neanderthals made other instruments that used the diatonic scale.

(A) basically says that "Neanderthals did not make any musical instruments other than bone flutes." If stated that way, it probably wouldn't have been as appealing. (Who cares about other instruments? The artifact in question is this bone flute, and the argument only cares about what it indicates.)

(A) uses inconclusive language (probably the only ... instrument made by Neanderthals) about something that could be important. For example, it would be bad for the argument if the bone flute could not be dated to a time thousands of years ago.

(A) fails to mention the diatonic scale directly, whereas (E) does mention the subject of the hypothesis.

Reasoning :

Neanderthals have been around for millions of years. ...
...(renaissance period is only 500 years old)

Did the argument give these dates? How do you know? Don't use specialized outside knowledge (beyond word definitions that could be found in any dictionary).

If Neanderthals did develop and build the flute per option A : its more likely that the diatonic scale was used far before the renaissance period (renaissance period is only 500 years old)

Given the flute has the diatonic scale and per option A -- the flute has been made by Neanderthals - its a bit more likely the diatonic scale was used far before the renaissance period

Where is the gap in my thinking

If Neanderthals did develop and build ... its more likely that the diatonic scale was used ... Given (all of that)... its a bit more likely the diatonic scale was used far before the renaissance period

When you find yourself telling a story with a lot of If...then statements, you are probably talking yourself into a wrong answer. You shouldn't have to jump through this many hoops to justify the answer.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - I really like Ron's analogy for this problem

I was wondering in this analogy below -- what would the equivalent of option A ?

Below is my attempt for option A

Thoughts ?

I do agree even in Ron's scenario, E is a good contender but I struggle to eliminate A even in this scenario for some reason ..

Here -- Think as though you're on a jury. People on juries know that you don't have to prove things; you just need strong evidence.

This argument is like the following:
Victim X was shot while sitting in his car, even though the car's windows are made of "bulletproof" glass. The bullets match the model of gun owned by Suspect Y. Therefore, Suspect Y probably shot Victim X.

Choice (D) is like
Suspect Y's gun is the simplest model that uses that particular kind of bullets.

Choice (E) is like
Suspect Y's gun shoots bullets with sufficient velocity to penetrate "bulletproof" glass.

My attempt for equivalent Option A - The gun's model (and we know this model matches the bullets found in Victim X per the premise in purple) is the only gun model possessed by Suspect Y.

Are we really saying the jury would not be interested in something like this ?

This seems to eliminate the possibility that Suspect X has multiple gun models and perhaps one model of the gun specifically may have matching bullets, but suspect Y may have other models of guns.

My equivalent of option A seems to suggest that Suspect Y only has one model type which makes it a bit more likely that perhaps Suspect Y is the real criminal .

[esledge]

Choice (A) is like
A bullet is probably the only thing that injured Victim X.

My reasoning is that between Ron's analogy and the original argument, here are the match-ups:
Victim X = Neanderthals
Victim X's car = Neanderthal's campsite
"Even though the car's windows are made of bullet proof glass" = even though the flute fragment only includes 3rd through 6th notes of 7-note scale (paraphrasing)
bullet = fragment of flute ... (because they are the pieces of evidence)
Suspect Y = the diatonic musical scale ... (because the fragments of the flute match the diatonic scale, as the bullet matches Suspect Y's gun)

So I came up with my analogous choice (A) by swapping words per the "key" above. And it sounds very appealing: (A) is probably true! We know Victim X was shot, so it would be weird and improbable to suggest that "no, he was actually also stabbed and/or poisoned." But you aren't looking for yet another feasible/probable/provable conclusion; the question wants you to "strongly support" the conclusion that's already in the argument.

[JbhB682]

Thank you so much Emily for your analysis on option A. If my understanding is accurate – A is wrong because

 Option A just proves Neanderthals built the bone flute

The next step, i.e., whether the bone flute has the diatonic scale specifically on itself is unaddressed in option A.

For all we know the bone flute built by the Neanderthals may have other types of musical scales instead such as the chromatic scale or the pentatonic scale and not the diatonic musical scale.

Given we don’t know if the bone flute has the diatonic scale specifically in option A – that’s the reason why A isn’t good

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily -
Just wondering if my analysis on option B is accurate or do you have another viewpoint on B

 B does not confirm if the flute itself is diatonic or not diatonic

 All B says there is no instrument with a diatomic scale found earlier than the flute – but that doesn’t mean the flute itself is necessarily diatonic

Given you dont know if the flute per option B has the diatonic scale on itself -- option B is unable to strengthen the cliam that the diatonic scale specifically has been used for thousands of years

[TiffanyB]

Hello JbhB682,

When attempting CR problems, it's critical to state your goal clearly. The goal in this particular problem is to find a strengthener. But what needs to be strengthened?

GOAL: Strengthen the conclusion that the diatonic music scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

A) You are correct that this strengthens the idea that Neanderthals built the bone flute. It also indicates that perhaps Neanderthals did not develop any other instruments. The development of additional Neanderthal instruments is unrelated to our goal.

B) The problem itself tells us that the flute is likely diatonic. This answer choice says that there are no other instruments that were 1) known to use the diatonic scale and 2) developed before the flute introduced in the problem. This answer choice gives additional support that the flute MAY have been the first musical instrument that used the diatonic scale, as long as it did in fact use the diatonic scale. This is not helpful in reaching our goal, as we need to establish the certain use of the diatonic scale rather than the first instrument that used it.

You are mostly correct in your assessments. In order to continue improving at CR, I'd recommend that you practice stating your goal before analyzing the answer choices.