Q20 - Humans began to spread across North America

[WaltGrace1983]

Correlation: Humans spread / Large mammals became extinct
-->
Causation: Human activity was causing the extinction

As my structure implies, this is a basic correlation/causation issue.

(A) What? Who cares if humans are not included in nature? It didn't say "nature caused extinction."

(B) This would be more tempting if the "contrary to the myth" statement existed as a premise. In this case, it does not. It is merely offering a bit more detail to the conclusion. The premise is the correlation outlined above.

(C) We do not need to compare these things. Eliminate.

(D) This is fine. We don't need to outline the specific animal species that became extinct. The conclusion is merely that "humans caused extinction."

(E) Correct. Key words are "direct result," aka causation. It is saying that there might be an ALTERNATIVE cause. Bingo.

[seychelles1718]

Correlation: Humans spread / Large mammals became extinct
-->
Causation: Human activity was causing the extinction

As my structure implies, this is a basic correlation/causation issue.

(A) What? Who cares if humans are not included in nature? It didn't say "nature caused extinction."

(B) This would be more tempting if the "contrary to the myth" statement existed as a premise. In this case, it does not. It is merely offering a bit more detail to the conclusion. The premise is the correlation outlined above.

(C) We do not need to compare these things. Eliminate.

(D) This is fine. We don't need to outline the specific animal species that became extinct. The conclusion is merely that "humans caused extinction."

(E) Correct. Key words are "direct result," aka causation. It is saying that there might be an ALTERNATIVE cause. Bingo.

I know A is not the correct answer for sure but I just don't really understand your explanation for A. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "it didn't say nature caused extinction"?

Thanks!

[mwalton444]

I don’t understand how (A) is the right answer either. It’s clear that there is no evidence for this person’s claim, but how are we supposed to know that a warmer climate can cause these animals to become extinct. And I do not see any mention of an “alternative hypothesis” only a “myth”.
If someone could clarify why this is the right answer it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me put up a complete explanation.

Question type: Flaw

ARGUMENT CORE
conc - humans caused the extinction of the large North American mammals 12000 years ago
why?
evid - 12,000 years ago ... humans spread more across warmer North America and a bunch of large mammals went extinct

ANALYSIS
This is pure correlation -> causality. Because the arrival of humans went hand in hand with the extinction of large mammals, the author assumes that the former CAUSED the latter.

We can always consider
1. It's just a coincidence
2. Maybe reverse causality? (maybe the dying off of large, human-eating mammals is what led to the greater influx of humans ... the land looked more hospitable now that there weren't as many large predators around)
3. Some other causal factor (maybe something else affected the food supply or mating abilities of the large mammals)

ANSWER CHOICES
(A) He doesn't do this, nor does this answer sound like it has anything to do with the argument core. He says "humans live with the rest of nature", which implies that humans are a component of nature.

(B) Another answer that is focused on the throwaway beginning to the last sentence. "Presuppopses what it attempts to prove" means "CIRCULAR REASONING", which is almost NEVER the correct answer.

(C) Who cares how a mammal extinction feels to a modern day human vs. to an early inhabitant of North America?! We're just trying to say, "Hey author, you haven't proven that humans caused the extinctions just because humans showed up during the same period as the extinctions."

(D) This would only add to the correctness of the author's point of view.

(E) Here we go! Third factor. Maybe the warm climate was a change that caused the extinction.

(E) is the correct answer.


It sounded like the previous poster thought "the alternative hypothesis" in (E) was alluding to something stated in the argument. It was not. (E) is just saying "author, how can you say 'it is CLEAR that humans caused the extinction' when the evidence you presented could just as easily lead one to speculate that the CLIMATE CHANGE caused the extinction." It's saying that the author has failed to rule out a compelling alternative explanation for the extinctions.