Scientist: A controversy in paleontology

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact2% picked this

   Many animals that do not stand upright have learned to make

   This sort of just reinforces a connection between standing upright / making advanced tools, by giving the "No Cause, No Effect" version of, not-stand upright / make only-basic tools. That sort of covariation would strengthen the argument, but since this is so weakly worded it's not really having any impact.

   2%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who

   Why this is right

   This provides an Effect, No Cause weakener to the author's argument. The Effect (advanced weapons, i.e. tools) is present before the supposed Cause (standing upright) is present. If we were nervous about saying that a weapon is a tool, that's where they were trying to gum up the works here. A tool is a device you use to achieve a certain function. A weapon is a device you use to achieve the function of killing something. So it qualifies as a tool.

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

   71%
3. C

   No Impact2% picked this

   Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no

   This looks like a Cause, No Effect type idea. They had the standing upright, but didn't have sophisticated tools. However, the author was never saying that "if you could stand upright, then you definitely had advanced tools". Since our author thinks standing upright precedes making advanced tools, she's only thinking "if you couldn't stand upright, then you wouldn't have had advanced tools".

   2%
4. D

   No Impact13% picked this

   Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more dexterity with their hands than did those

   The author isn't saying that standing upright is a way to have more dexterous hands; she's just saying it's a way to have free use of your hands. It doesn't matter how dexterous your hands are, if you're walking on all fours. Those two hands and two feet are all touching the ground, so they don't have the freedom to work on building stuff.

   13%
5. E

   Out of Scope: using the tool12% picked this

   Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able

   This argument is about what it takes to develop / make a tool, not about what is required to use the tool. It's very easy for me to use an advanced tool like my smartphone while lying down -- but could I have built a smartphone while lying down? In general, it's much easier to use a tool than to construct the tool, so it's not a great comparison for us to hear what was required to USE the tool.

   12%