Q19 - Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Indiana Jones found some stuff in old fireplaces that created smoke but not a lot of heat/light. From this, he concludes that Neanderthals probably preserved meat by smoking it.

Answer Anticipation:
While the argument tells us this stuff is smoky, that doesn't guarantee it's good for smoking (a burning tire probably creates a lot of smoke, but I wouldn't put my food over it). I'm expecting the answer to bring up a reason that lichen/grass would be bad to cook food over.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope (if anything, strengthen). This answer tells us there were other, non-smoky fireplaces. It seems the two fireplaces were used for different functions, but we can't infer what those functions were. If anything, this suggests the smoke fireplace had a special, non-heat/light purpose. That wouldn't strengthen the argument (too many assumptions), but if it has any impact, it would be in that direction.

(B) Not what I was expecting, so I wouldn't pick it on the first pass. I'd leave it, though, because this tells us that the Neanderthals had no other choice but to burn this stuff for heat/light. After reading the others, I'd pick this answer because it gives another reason to use lichen/grass to create a fire - it was the best option for heat/light.

(C) This answer shows us that lichen was special, but there's not enough to connect it to the purpose of using it, so we can't say whether this has an impact on this specific use.

(D) Too weak/out of scope. A few groups finding another method doesn't impact the argument about whether other groups (or even the groups that had other methods) used another method. This especially doesn't impact the connection between the premise and conclusion.

(E) Out of scope. This is a great reason to smoke meat, but that doesn't have any impact on whether they had the know-how and ability to do it.

Takeaway/Pattern: Stay flexible on strengthen/weaken questions! Leave in-scope answers if you think there's any chance they could be right.

#officialexplanation

[seychelles1718]

I have a question for Patrick!

You said you usually weaken an arument by stating an anti-conclusion. So I pre-phrased by saying "Neanderthals probably did NOT preserved meat by smoking it" and jumped into the AC. But I found hard time evaluating an AC with this pre-phrase. What would you have done if you were weakening this argument?

Thanks so much as always.

[ohthatpatrick]

The single most common argument template in Logical Reasoning is that of Causal Interpretation/Explanations.

You start with a CURIOUS FACT.
And then the author concludes some potential EXPLANATION/INTERPRETATION

There are always the same two questions to ask:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the CURIOUS FACT?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the EXPLANATION/INTERPRETATION?

Most of the time (on Weaken, Flaw, and Nec Assump), the correct answer functions like #1.
These do NOT feel like Anti-Conclusion, because they target the Evidence, not the Conclusion. These help the Anti-Conclusion's case by giving the jury a DIFFERENT way to understand the background evidence.

Strengthen leans a little more heavily towards #2 answers.

CURIOUS FACT:
we found burnt lichen and grass in N's fireplaces (this type of fire would be very smoky)

What does this mean? How should we interpret this? What explains the practice of burning lichen and grass?


AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION / INTERPRETATION:
They must have made smoky fires in order to smoke meat, for preserving.

We must pose our two prephrase questions:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain why [we found burnt lichen/grass in N fireplaces]?

2. How PLAUSIBLE is the story that [N's smoked meat, via lichen/grass fires, in order to preserve the meat]?

A potential Weaken answer of each style:
1. Neanderthals burned lichen and grass because they enjoyed the fragrant aroma.

2. Neanderthals did not understand meat preservation and had no process in mind of how do accomplish such a goal.

(B) is a #1. (Remember, 9 times out of 10 on a Causal Explanation/Interpretation argument, the correct answer to a Weaken question provides an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION for the observed phenomenon, the CURIOUS FACT)

"They didn't burn lichen and grass in order to get a smoky fire that could preserve meat. They burned lichen and grass because that was the only stuff they had available for making a fire!"

[ZaftigG65]

Is wood a plant?

[MIkaylaE952]

The single most common argument template in Logical Reasoning is that of Causal Interpretation/Explanations.

You start with a CURIOUS FACT.
And then the author concludes some potential EXPLANATION/INTERPRETATION

There are always the same two questions to ask:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the CURIOUS FACT?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the EXPLANATION/INTERPRETATION?

Most of the time (on Weaken, Flaw, and Nec Assump), the correct answer functions like #1.
These do NOT feel like Anti-Conclusion, because they target the Evidence, not the Conclusion. These help the Anti-Conclusion's case by giving the jury a DIFFERENT way to understand the background evidence.

Strengthen leans a little more heavily towards #2 answers.

CURIOUS FACT:
we found burnt lichen and grass in N's fireplaces (this type of fire would be very smoky)

What does this mean? How should we interpret this? What explains the practice of burning lichen and grass?


AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION / INTERPRETATION:
They must have made smoky fires in order to smoke meat, for preserving.

We must pose our two prephrase questions:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain why [we found burnt lichen/grass in N fireplaces]?

2. How PLAUSIBLE is the story that [N's smoked meat, via lichen/grass fires, in order to preserve the meat]?

A potential Weaken answer of each style:
1. Neanderthals burned lichen and grass because they enjoyed the fragrant aroma.

2. Neanderthals did not understand meat preservation and had no process in mind of how do accomplish such a goal.

(B) is a #1. (Remember, 9 times out of 10 on a Causal Explanation/Interpretation argument, the correct answer to a Weaken question provides an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION for the observed phenomenon, the CURIOUS FACT)

"They didn't burn lichen and grass in order to get a smoky fire that could preserve meat. They burned lichen and grass because that was the only stuff they had available for making a fire!"

You say the author's explanation is "They must have made smoky fires in order to smoke meat, for preserving."
I'm a bit confused by this because to me it reads like the argument's conclusion is speculating on the means by which meat was persevered (smoking it) as opposed to their reason for creating smokey fires in the first place (nothing to do with the meat). As a result, I was looking for an answer that provided an alternative explanation for how meat was preserved. B seems to strengthen the argument by ruling out that it was heated? Just curious as to how you were clued into that the argument was trying to give a reason for creating smokey fires. Also I feel like B doesn't really say that they didn't create fires with lichen/grass to smoke meat..it could have been one of the reasons even if they created these fires for many other reasons as well (e.g. to keep warm)

[WinnieL80]

I am still VERY confused as to why A is incorrect. Wouldn't the discovery of another type of fireplace suggests that they actually used this type of fireplace to cook meat (by heating) rather than use the lichen fireplace to smoke it? Therefore, the possibility of them smoking meat is actually reduced. Help!!

[JingL911]

Same confusion as above!

In my understanding, (A) indicates, there might be some way to preserve meat rather than smoking by burned lichen. Therefore, (A) is weakening the core.

As for (B), it says burned lichen is the only way for heat or light, which implies if there's any way to preserve meat, that should only be burned lichen. So (B) is strengthening the core.

Could any instructors to provide some instructions?? Help, really!!!!!!

[smiller]

There are some great questions here about answer choice (A) and alternatives to smoking meat.

It's important to remember that we aren't just attacking the conclusion here. Our job in a Weaken question is to notice the unstated assumptions that help the premises support the conclusion. We are weakening those assumptions.

So what are the assumptions? Based on the facts provided in the argument, other conclusions are just as reasonable as the possibility that Neanderthals used smoke to preserve meat. Maybe they used the smoke to signal each other. Perhaps Lichen and grass were the only type of fuel that Neanderthals had available. The argument ignores these other possibilities. It assumes that none of these alternatives were the actual reason for burning lichen and grass.

The correct answer weakens this assumption. Choice (B) very strongly suggests that Neanderthals burned lichen and grass for a reason other than smoking meat: they burned it to produce light and heat because better options were not available to them.

Choice (A) suggests that Neanderthals were able to make fires that produced more heat than smoke. If they had this ability, why were lichen and grass found in their fireplaces? If anything, this answer choice suggests that Neanderthals might have created smoky fires for a reason other than producing heat. It doesn't prove that the reason was to smoke meat, but it aligns with the idea that they used the smoke for some purpose, which could have been to smoke meat. This doesn't weaken the argument.

It's understandable to think that the heat mentioned in choice (A) could have been used for cooking, but that doesn't actually undermine the argument. By definition, cooking meat is not the same as preserving it. Cooked food still spoils pretty quickly. The purpose of preserving food is to prevent it from spoiling. Even if Neanderthals burned this other material to cook meat, they might also have used lichen and grass fires to preserve meat. One of these possibilities doesn't make the other less likely.

There is another problem with choice (A) that's even more significant. Do we know that the "other fireplaces" mentioned in choice (A) were Neanderthal fires? Were they even from the same time period? We have no way of knowing. We only know that they were found close to the Neanderthal fireplaces. Notice that choice (B) specifically mentions the same time period as the stimulus—60,000 years ago.

We have to make some significant assumptions to conclude that choice (A) is even relevant to the argument, assumptions that we don't need to make with choice (B).

[MinjinC831]

The thing that stumps me about answer choice (B) is that you would need to assume that Neanderthals needed or wanted artificial sources of heat or light. I initially selected answer choice (A) because I didn't like the other answers.

My current understanding of why answer choice (B) is correct is that it's providing us with another purpose for the lichen/grass-- it was used to produce heat or light because there were no other plants that could fulfill this purpose as effectively at the time. However, I feel like it's a little unfair that we should be expected to assume that the Neanderthals *needed* extra sources of heat and light. What if the Neanderthals were perfectly happy with only relying on the light from the sun and didn't feel the need to create extra sources of light? Maybe they just stayed inactive during the night or when it's dark? Also, what if they were more resistant to cold temperatures than modern humans and/or they migrated to warmer locations with the changing seasons so they didn't need an extra heat source? I did leave (B) as a contender, but I eventually crossed it out because I felt that the information about "heat or light" was ultimately irrelevant.

Is there something that I'm not understanding or I'm missing in my reasoning? Thank you!