PT23 · S2 · Q6 Prehistoric chimpanzee species

Too Strong: never carried tools Chimps vs. Humans The author hasn't committed herself to the extreme and unlikely idea that prehistoric humans never carried tools with them when traveling from one place to another. The reason this answer might feel tempting to some, though, is because one possible objection we had was, "What if this tool they found was used by a chimp, who lived in a forest, and just dropped it in the savannah as it was traveling from one forest to another". So a 'corrected' version of this answer would say (A) Prehistoric chimpanzees did not carry tools with them as they traveled through a savannah

The author hasn't committed herself to the idea that most of East Africa was savanna. She is only saying this area where the tools were found was savanna. Savannas might be 7% of East Africa's habitats or 70%. It doesn't make any difference to the argument.

This looks off-putting because of how extreme it is. Based on this paragraph, the author is now committed to believing that a prehistoric human never ever when into a forest in habited by chimps? Why would it matter if there were at least one human who ventured into a chimp-controlled area of the forest? Would that hurt the author's argument and allow us to argue that the tools found in the savanna really belonged to chimps? No, not unless we think "human venturing into chimp-controlled forest = human leaves with a chimp tool in his possession and drops it in the savanna", but that's way too big a stretch.

This also has the lovable ruling-out "not", so we should see whether the negation weakens the argument. If we say, "Hey, author, those prehistoric chimps were capable of using tools more sophisticated than the tools we found", that would not weaken. The argument had nothing to do with how simple or sophisticated the found tools were. The author didn't decide on human-user vs. chimp-user based on the tools' sophistication. He decided based on the habitat where the tools were found.