Q21 - Archaeologist: Our team discovered 5,000

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Aboriginal people in CA built birchbark canoes 5000 yrs ago.
Evidence: We found 5000 year old copper tools in an area conducive to making birchbark canoes, and these tools are used to make birchbark canoes in recent times.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument hinges on assuming similarities between past and present.

We're assuming that the raw materials we currently see near the copper tools were similar to the raw materials in that site 5000 years ago.

And we're assuming that tools that are PRESENTLY used to make b-canoes were SIMILARLY used to make b-canoes in the past.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Trade value is irrelevant.

(B) YES … if we negate this, the argument is badly weakened. If the tools were NOT present in the region 5000 years ago, we must have discovered them there because they were somehow transplanted there. But that would badly weaken the circumstantial tapestry the author is weaving ... "You got canoe-making tools being found in an area with canoe-friendly trees. I think canoe-making was going down!" If we're saying, "Author, 5000 years ago, those trees were there, but those tools were not there", then we're weakening the story he's building.

(C) "only" is unnecessarily extreme

(D) "only" is unnecessarily extreme

(E) This has an implied "only". It's saying that the author has to assume that "canoe-making is THE ONLY use we know of that Aboriginal people had for these tools". It is also too extreme. We wouldn't care if it's known that aboriginal people use these tools for canoe-making AND for spear-making. It's true that the more uses these tools have, the less clear it would be WHICH of those uses those same tools might have been used for 5000 years ago. But this doesn't have anywhere near the weakening effect of negating (B), where the tools just straight up don't exist in that area 5000 years ago.

Takeaway/Pattern: Three extreme answers (A), (C), and (D) should be relatively easy to get rid of. Using the negation test for (B) and (E) can help us find (B) as the correct answer.

The broader archetype behind this argument is that when we're relying on archaeological evidence, "found artifacts", the scientists are usually tempted to assume that "where I found this artifact = where this artifact came from". I might find a shark tooth in Sibera and conclude, "Apparently, there were once sharks in Siberia!"

Maybe ... but maybe someone just wore a shark tooth necklace all the way from the Mediterranean to Siberia and THAT'S how the shark tooth got there.

#officialexplanation

[ThaoN810]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Aboriginal people in CA built birchbark canoes 5000 yrs ago.
Evidence: We found 5000 year old copper tools in an area conducive to making birchbark canoes, and these tools are used to make birchbark canoes in recent times.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument hinges on assuming similarities between past and present.

We're assuming that the raw materials we currently see near the copper tools were similar to the raw materials in that site 5000 years ago.

And we're assuming that tools that are PRESENTLY used to make b-canoes were SIMILARLY used to make b-canoes in the past.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Trade value is irrelevant.

(B) YES … if we negate this, the argument is badly weakened. If the tools were NOT present in the region 5000 years ago, we must have discovered them there because they were somehow transplanted there. But that would badly weaken the circumstantial tapestry the author is weaving ... "You got canoe-making tools being found in an area with canoe-friendly trees. I think canoe-making was going down!" If we're saying, "Author, 5000 years ago, those trees were there, but those tools were not there", then we're weakening the story he's building.

(C) "only" is unnecessarily extreme

(D) "only" is unnecessarily extreme

(E) This has an implied "only". It's saying that the author has to assume that "canoe-making is THE ONLY use we know of that Aboriginal people had for these tools". It is also too extreme. We wouldn't care if it's known that aboriginal people use these tools for canoe-making AND for spear-making. It's true that the more uses these tools have, the less clear it would be WHICH of those uses those same tools might have been used for 5000 years ago. But this doesn't have anywhere near the weakening effect of negating (B), where the tools just straight up don't exist in that area 5000 years ago.

Takeaway/Pattern: Three extreme answers (A), (C), and (D) should be relatively easy to get rid of. Using the negation test for (B) and (E) can help us find (B) as the correct answer.

The broader archetype behind this argument is that when we're relying on archaeological evidence, "found artifacts", the scientists are usually tempted to assume that "where I found this artifact = where this artifact came from". I might find a shark tooth in Sibera and conclude, "Apparently, there were once sharks in Siberia!"

Maybe ... but maybe someone just wore a shark tooth necklace all the way from the Mediterranean to Siberia and THAT'S how the shark tooth got there.

#officialexplanation

Hi Patrick! Thank you for your insightful response as always!

I still have trouble with this question , and would greatly appreciate it if it could be elaborated some more.

"I might find a shark tooth in Sibera and conclude, "Apparently, there were once sharks in Siberia!" >> Can I make an argument that a shark tool is a natural item, while copper tools are man made? I think tools are developed by people from doing their activities (like a sort of "evolution" of tools). It's an unlikely picture for me that the copper tools (made by another people) just float down the river, and a people pick it up and use it for one specific purpose. People make tools that suit their purpose. It's unlikely that they'd just pick up tools and some how they fit perfectly for a purpose (so well that they continued to use the tools until more recent time). For example, we humans design a fork to eat. A mermaid picks up a stray fork and uses it to comb her hair. But the fork is really ill-suited for combing hair.

I picked (E) for this one. You say that the negation of (E) has some weakening effects too. Since I didn't see it in (B), I went for (E) with confidence.