Archaeologist: A skeleton of a

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct62% picked this

   The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or

   Why this is right

   This badly undermines the plausibility of the author's explanation for the projectile. She was thinking, "Since it doesn't look like a projectile from close-Eurasia, it must have come from distant-Eurasia". She was assuming that maybe that type of projectile is found in distant-Eurasia. This answer is saying, "Nope." Since the projectile doesn't resemble anything we've found from all of Eurasia, the author's hypothesis is badly weakened, and anyone who wanted to argue, "Maybe this is from an indigenous North American" would have his argument starting to look better and better.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   62%
2. B

   Strengthens, if anything19% picked this

   The people who occupied the Eurasian area closest to North America remained nomadic throughout

   If the close-Eurasians remained nomadic throughout the Ice Age, then they didn't settle anywhere! That makes it more likely that distant-Eurasians would have had to be the first Eurasian settlers.

   19%
3. C

   No Impact4% picked this

   The skeleton of a bear from the same place and time as the mastodon skeleton

   This just adds more evidence that humans were hunting big animals with these projectiles, but this answer doesn't help us assess the central Causal Mystery: who were these humans? where did they come from?

   4%
4. D

   Strengthens, if anything7% picked this

   Other North American artifacts from the peak of the Ice Age are similar to ones from the same time found in

   This either does nothing, or it slightly helps the author to build plausibility that there were in fact distant-Eurasians leaving behind artifacts in North America.

   7%
5. E

   Less Impactful Than The Answer8% picked this

   Climatic conditions in North America just before the Ice Age were more conducive to human habitation than were those in the part of Eurasia

   This establishes some incentive for people from close-Eurasia to come settle North America, in the time period before the Ice Age. So it helps weaken the conclusion somewhat, because we can argue, "The first Eurasian settlers weren't from distant-Eurasia. They were from close Eurasia, since those people had incentive to come to a better climate in North America." However, 1. people in distant Eurasia may have had the exact same incentive 2. a more habitable climate is not a strong incentive for a migration (migrations are tough activities driven by necessity, not improvement). Los Angeles is more conducive to human habitation than is Detroit, but that doesn't mean we see a huge tide of people leaving Detroit for LA. Moving is complicated. 3. this answer weakens in a very diffuse way -- "Oh? Maybe people in close-Eurasia would have wanted to come settle North America" (not that they would know the climate in North America, prior to arriving). The correct answer weakened in a much more definitive way --- "This projectile probably isn't Eurasian at all."

   8%