#8 - Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

This question stem requires that we find the choice which would weaken Dr. Tyson’s conclusion, which is that the prints were made by hominids.

Answer choice (A): Regardless of the number of individuals, this would not weaken the argument that the prints were early hominid.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If there are such species of bears, then it would seem more likely that the referenced prints were made by such bears, who would not have had to make a strange “cross-step” to create the prints, since they would naturally have the big toes on the outside.

Answer choice (C): This choice would not weaken Tyson’s conclusion—if there were human-looking prints nearby, this would strengthen Tyson’s case.

Answer choice (D): Regardless of the parts that were erased, this stimulus deals with the aspects that remained, and how to construe this evidence.

Answer choice (E): The presence of hoofed animals neither strengthens nor weakens the case for early hominid footprints, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[ylikate]

For this question, I chose C b/c I thought C suggests that there are "normal/convention" human footprints nearby, which suggests the human of that period ("contemporaneous") do not walk in cross-stepping manner, weakening Dr Tyson's conclusion.


Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, and I think your analysis has some merit. However, keep in mind that the footprints still look like hominid prints. Just because some nearby hominids didn't walk cross-stepped doesn't mean none did, right? Heck, they could just as easily have been made by the very same hominids as the ones nearby, but they were playing a game like hopscotch where they intentionally walked cross-stepped. This isn't exactly a causal argument, so showing an alternate hominid situation isn't going to weaken the good Dr.'s conclusion.

Your answer here really needs to go directly to the heart of the matter - you need some explanation that's better than Dr. Tyson's (a man with the name of a real genius, I must say, so it's hard for me to question his brilliance). To weaken "these must be hominid prints" you should be looking for an answer that says "these are not necessarily hominid prints."

That's where B works, and it's almost like a Resolve the Paradox answer. How could these prints so strongly resemble hominid prints and yet account for the cross-step problem? B gives us that resolution - if it's true that some bears basically have hominid feet, but they are on the opposite side, then this situation looks much more likely to be one of bear prints (walking normally) rather than hominid prints (walking weird).

Hope that helped!

[Tony_Stark]

I'm wondering about the shape of the feet in question B. In the stimulus, they say "a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe." - basically the shape of human feet, the large toes adjacent from one another.

However, in B it says "... except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe." - the way I am reading this, wouldn't that mean that the large toe was on the outside of each foot - the opposite of the feet directly observed in the volcanic ash?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Tony_Stark!

I think what (B) would do is it would explain the footprints in the ash. More to the point, it would weaken the argument because it would provide an alternate explanation.

That is, one explanation for the footprints is cross-stepping hominids with the toes described in the stimulus. What (B) does is it offers another explanation--instead, perhaps those footprints could be explained by the existence of non-cross-stepping bears with feet similar to human feet, but opposite in the direction of toes. If (B) were true, it would weaken Dr. Tyson's conclusion that "are clearly early hominid footprints since they show human characteristics..."

Hope that helps!

[LSAT2018]

I understand why answer (B) is the correct answer but had trouble eliminating answer (C). That footprints at a nearby site do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist suggest that they were not hominids that made those prints, thus weakening the argument to a limited extent (not as much as the correct answer, but still does seem to weaken)?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi LSAT2018,

Before I address your question, I want to clear up one issue. I may be misinterpreting your question, but I believe you are saying that a non-cross-stepping print would mean that it is unlikely that a hominid made that print.

Humans do not naturally walk 'cross-step.' The only times I can imagine a human walking cross-step is when someone is trying to walk across a tightrope, playing hopscotch, or performing some specific types of dance. Hominids tend to walk with the left foot to the left of center, and the right foot to the right of center.

The stimulus backs this up when it states that it would be unexpected for a hominid to walk cross-step. So the foot-prints nearby, which do not have the cross-step pattern, are more in line with what we would expect from a hominid.

[andriana.caban]

Hi,

Can you explain why/how there is causal reasoning in this argument? Thanks!

Additionally, if answer choice (d) omitted "most of the other footprints" and instead said something like "the footprints at site G were animals with hooves" would it then be correct?

[Adam Tyson]

The causality is not very obvious or powerful here, andriana.caban, but it's about what caused the unusual pattern of footprints. Dr. Tyson thinks hominids were the cause, Dr. Rees thinks they were not. Since we are trying to weaken Dr. Tyson's claim, we can look for another cause for the footprints, and answer B gives us an alternate cause (bears) for those prints.

I think you mean answer E, not D, is that right? If that answer read "the footprints at site G were of animals with hooves" we would have a real problem, because then the fact that they were described as looking like hominid prints would make no sense. While that change might make that answer work, it would be completely out of character for the authors of this test to give us an answer that completely contradicted a premise that way. I think they would have to add something to the answer, maybe saying "hooves that strongly resembled hominid feet." Thankfully, we don't have to deal with that odd hypothetical situation!

[mahsan]

HI,

I'm having some trouble eliminating answer choice D. If some details of the footprints were erased before the ash was sealed, couldn't it be possible that Dr. Tyson's interpretation of the footprints is faulty? Maybe it's the missing details that cause the footprints to resemble human prints but had those additional details not been missing, the footprints would have looked different?