In northern Europe, archaeologists have

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct69% picked this

   Sharpened wooden poles were not used by humanlike precursors of Homo sapiens for self-defense or to cut

   Why this is right

   This answer eliminates two major alternative explanations for the sharpened poles. If the poles were not used for self-defense or for cutting and transporting scavenged carcasses, then the remaining plausible use is hunting. By ruling out non-hunting purposes, this answer strengthens the inference that the poles were hunting weapons. Combined with the horse remains found alongside, the hunting interpretation becomes much more compelling. The argument needed help closing the gap between "found tools near dead animals" and "used tools to kill animals," and this answer does exactly that.

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

   69%
2. B

   Premise Support10% picked this

   Humanlike inhabitants of northern Europe are known to have used stones and wooden sticks as tools more

   This answer establishes that humanlike inhabitants used stone and wooden tools more than 400,000 years ago. This makes it more plausible that the discovered artifacts were made by humanlike precursors rather than some other agent, which reinforces a premise. But the argument's weakness is not about who made the tools — it is about what the tools were used for. Knowing that precursors were capable of making tools does not tell us whether those tools were used for hunting, self-defense, or processing scavenged food. This answer supports the premise but does not strengthen the conclusion.

   10%
3. C

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   Homo sapiens evolved from humanlike precursors at least 200,000 years earlier than

   This answer says Homo sapiens evolved from precursors at least 200,000 years earlier than normally assumed. Even if modern humans evolved earlier, the argument's second premise states they "did not inhabit Europe" before 200,000 years ago — and evolving earlier does not necessarily mean inhabiting Europe earlier. This answer challenges the timeline of evolution, not the timeline of European habitation, which is the relevant premise. And even if it did affect the timeline, it would not help determine whether the tools were used for hunting.

   5%
4. D

   Unclear Impact5% picked this

   The humanlike precursors of Homo sapiens developed widely divergent patterns of behavior in the very

   This answer says that humanlike precursors developed "widely divergent patterns of behavior" in different ecosystems. This is too vague to strengthen the argument. "Widely divergent behavior" could include hunting, but it could also include many other activities — tool-making for non-hunting purposes, complex social behaviors, shelter construction, or entirely different survival strategies. Without specifying that hunting was among these behaviors, this answer has no clear bearing on the conclusion. It broadens the range of possible behaviors without narrowing down to the one the argument needs to establish.

   5%
5. E

   Unclear Impact10% picked this

   Prehistoric Homo sapiens who adopted hunting as a means of food acquisition did not abandon

   This answer says that prehistoric Homo sapiens who hunted did not abandon scavenging and gathering. This is about Homo sapiens, not about the humanlike precursors the argument discusses. Even applying it to precursors, the fact that hunting and scavenging coexisted does not help establish that the precursors hunted in the first place. If anything, the coexistence of multiple food-acquisition strategies makes it harder to determine from artifacts alone whether a particular set of tools was used for hunting, scavenging, or gathering. This answer does not help resolve the ambiguity about tool use that weakens the argument.

   10%