PT135 · S1 · Q18 Zoologist: Every domesticated large mammal

Why this is right

On Necessary Assumption, we know that ruling out language like "not" is often found in correct answers, so when we see it, we slow down and negate the answer to see if that turns the idea into an Objection. If we were to say that "it is much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than it was in the past", does that sound like an Objection? Sure! It sounds like we can't trust that species that were too difficult for humans to domesticate thousands of years ago shouldn't automatically be assumed to be too difficult for modern humans to domesticate. This would hurt the author's assumption that "was true of the past is still true now". If you're picky like me, you might hate this correct answer because the evidence says "Since that time ... we've tried innumerable times to domesticate all the ones that seemed worth it". To me, that language doesn't clearly define a past vs. present. It sounds more like over the last few thousand years we have been continually trying innumerable times, and thus it makes little sense to act like the author was saying "We tried a few thousand years ago and it was hard, so it would still be hard". It sounds more like "We've been continually trying for a few thousand years and it's been hard." But the fact remains that this answer is the best available, since on Necessary Assumption we're going by the standard of "Which answer, if negated, most weakens". Suggesting a big disparity between how difficult it was then vs. how difficult it is now is still the best objection available in these answer choices.

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