Q14 - Biologists are mistaken in thinking

[christine.defenbaugh]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Biologists are wrong to think that fossil record = direct evidence of human evoluation
Evidence: Fossils interpretation = never objective - instead, infused with the paleontologists biases. EXAMPLE: upright pelvis classification shows a bias on a theory about human evolution.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is a classic refutation style conclusion (some people are wrong about a thing). It's worth it to stop and identify what exactly the author is saying people were wrong about! Here, it's right in the sentence: it was wrong to thihnk that the fossil record is direct evidence of how human evolution went.
Classic traps to watch out for: answers that focus on the premises, and answers that confuse what the refutation conclusion is actually refuting.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is focused on the example in the premises.

(B) This is tempting because it seems to touch on the 'cannot be objectively interpreted' idea, but 1) that's a premise and 2) that's not the same as 'cannot be tested'.

(C) This is focused on the example in the premises.

(D) This is a simplification of the refutation in the first sentence. "People are mistaken in thinking X" is functionally equivalent to "X isn't true." Exactly what we're looking for!

(E) This is a great match for the evidence, not the conclusion!

Takeaway/Pattern:
Refutation conclusions can be unweildy if we don't take the time to reformat them into a simpler distillation. Remember, the goal is to make things simpler when you breakdown and argument, not more complex. We're not looking to have a grand epiphany, just boil down the language to the most important nuggets.

#officialexplanation