Q7 - Thousands of fossils from the long-extinct dire wolf

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Dire wolf pups under six months old probably did not accompany adults that were hunting or scavenging.

Evidence: Thousands of dire wolf fossils were found in tar pits. None came from pups under six months old.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion introduces the concepts of "hunting" and "scavenging," but those don't factor into the evidence at all. That means the argument assumes something about them! Namely, that the dire wolves that got trapped in the tar pits got trapped while hunting or scavenging.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Nope. We conclude that they didn't accompany adults, but that doesn't require assuming that they wouldn't have helped if they did.

(B) This would weaken our argument by providing an alternate explanation for the lack of pup fossils. The argument concludes that the reason there are no fossils of pups is that they weren't out hunting and scavenging. B opens up the possibility that they were, in fact, out and about, but more easily able to escape the tar pits.

(C) No way. This kind of ranking comparison is a big red flag on Necessary Assumption questions. We definitely don't need to assume that there were more dire wolves trapped than any other species because the conclusion doesn't deal with other species. It's just about pups vs. adults.

(D) A ha! A match for our prediction. And if we hadn't predicted this, we could still conclude it's correct by using the negation test. What if the entrapment of dire wolves didn't most frequently occur when they were hunting or scavenging? Well, then the lack of entrapped pups doesn't say anything about whether the pups were hunting and scavenging. This destroys the argument and proves the answer to be correct.

(E) Ooo…tempting. It addresses hunting and scavenging, which is what we predicted. But "favorite" is pretty extreme and pretty specific. Do we really need it to be a favorite location for hunting and scavenging? Or do we just need it to be a location? The negation test will tell us! If it's not a favorite location, the argument still holds, as long as the tar pits were still a place dire wolves visited to hunt and scavenge. Since it doesn't destroy the argument, it isn't a necessary assumption.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Always look for new concepts in the conclusion of Assumption Family questions. If the argument draws a conclusion about something it has no evidence of, it must be assuming, and recognizing that will set you up for success.

#officialexplanation

[MysongO386]

Hi! I'm a little confused why the negation test works for D. Supposing that the entrapment of dire wolves didn't most frequently occur when they were hunting or scavenging, it could still be the case that it occured somewhat frequently (say, 40% of the time when wolves get entrapped, they were hunting or scavenging). In that case the argument still seems to work.
I agree that D is the best answer choice, but I only chose it by elimination and it took way too long. Am I just overthinking?