Patterson: Bone flutes dating

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct53% picked this

   arguing that the body of evidence to which Patterson appeals is insufficient

   Why this is right

   This answer is so, so dumb. This description applies to every rebuttal ever. Since all we're looking for is a true description, we'll pick it. But, man! What a waste of time giving this tough paragraph any sophisticated thinking, when all the answer is pointing out is that the 2nd person wasn't convinced of the 1st person's conclusion.

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

   53%
2. B

   Doesn't Challenge Truth of Premise22% picked this

   offering evidence to challenge the truth of the premise of

   Patterson's premise is that "the earliest evidence for music are these bone flutes from the U.P. period". Garza isn't trying to challenge that. She isn't saying we have earlier evidence for music. She's just saying it's possible that there were earlier instruments that never survived the millennia to become archaeological evidence. On most Method of Response questions, we see one answer say that the 2nd person was disputing the truth of the 1st person's evidence. To my knowledge, that's never been right. It's not the LSAT style to contradict premises. People argue around them. "Yes, your premise is true, but your assumption is not, so your conclusion could be false".

   22%
3. C

   No Counterexample Not a General Conclusion8% picked this

   presenting a counterexample to the general conclusion drawn in

   Patterson's conclusion is somewhat specific: "Music probably first arose during the Upper Paleolithic period". It's a stretch to consider that a generalization. And there's no counterexample. Garza didn't present a specific case of music that existed prior to the Upper Paleolithic period.

   8%
4. D

   No Analogy4% picked this

   presenting an argument analogous to Patterson's argument to reveal a potential flaw

   There's no analogous argument presented. An analogous argument sounds like, "Hogwash! That's like saying that my daughter Jane first learned curse words from Doug because the earliest evidence I have of her cursing is when she was in Doug's class."

   4%
5. E

   Too Strong: inconsistent12% picked this

   using Patterson's evidence to draw a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion drawn

   Inconsistent = contradictory. If Garza drew a conclusion contradicting Patterson's, that would mean that Garza concluded that "music did not arise during the Upper Paleolithic". Her disagreement isn't that strong. If she were talking to a person of faith, she would be agnostic, not an atheist. She doesn't actively believe that Patterson is wrong, she just thinks it's premature to draw that conclusion because there's a good chance that earlier evidence of music wouldn't have survived to be part of the archaeological record.

   12%