Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human like

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens22% picked this

   In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that

   This rules out the idea that they were using lichen/grass fires for their regular cooking, because they were desperate and had to settle for a crappy fire. According to this answer, they definitely had access to something like wood fires, so using the smoky grass fire was a choice, not a necessity. That rules out an alternate explanation, so it strengthens.

   22%
2. B

   Correct66% picked this

   In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce

   Why this is right

   This suggests an Alternate Explanation: they were setting lichen/grass fires for all their fire needs, because they were desperate and had to settle for a crappy fire. They didn't have any better options for fire than lichen/grass. So we shouldn't interpret their smoky fires in the sense of, "Hmmm, they must have really wanted smoke for some reasons. I know — they were preserving meats!" Instead, we should interpret their smoky fires as, "In this area where they lived, that type of fire was the best you could do." They weren't seeking the smoky quality because it would work well for a niche meat-preserving technique. They were stuck with the smoky quality because it was their only source of fire. Could they still have preserved meats with those smoky fires? Sure. But the reason this answer weakens is because it suffices to explain the smoky fires. We don't need to invent the 'preserved meat' hypothesis in order to explain smoky fires, if smoky fires were the only type of fire possible for these guys.

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

   66%
3. C

   Too Weak Strengthens, if Anything3% picked this

   Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have

   Words that mean "at least one data point", such as some / sometimes / can / may / might / could / not all, are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. They don't have much impact. In this case, the data point would be a Strengthening one, anyway. If the Neanderthals are going out of there way to procure this lichen for the sake of getting a smoky grass fire going, then they have some specific plans with this lichen, some specific needs. This boosts the plausibility that they were engaged in some very intentional cooking technique like smoking meat to preserve it.

   3%
4. D

   Strengthens, if Anything7% picked this

   There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving

   We don't care much about what was happening with Neanderthals later in time. But if the later Neanderthals preserved meat, then that adds some plausibility to the notion that the earlier Neanderthals (of 60,000 years ago) preserved meat. The fact that the later Neanderthals did so by some way other than smoking the meat doesn't really undermine that. The author's conclusion is that the Neanderthals probably preserved meat. That conclusion doesn't care by what means they preserved it. The author is definitely assuming that these N's from 60,000 years ago with the lichen/grass fires did so by smoking it, but she's not assuming all N's did it that way.

   7%
5. E

   Strengthens1% picked this

   The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to

   This adds some plausibility to the Author's Explanation. It offers a reason why the Neanderthals would have had a vested interest in developing the technique of smoking meat to preserve it.

   1%