#18 - There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling

[samwestov]

Can polish reasonably include the meaning "to make sharper?" does the "Polishing for hunting purpose" provide evidence for us to reasonably believe in this more abstract definition of polish ?

But, not necessarily.... polishing for hunting purposes could mean they make the flints glossier (the truer definition of the word) for the purposes of them being brighter and more easy to find after hunting... that makes sense to me.

But could I still use this reasoning to give more consideration to D, for they could make household objects brighter not for aesthetic purposes but to make them easier to find...

I don't know.

it makes sense when you are shooting a flint from a bow that it will be hard to find, and therefore it would be advantageous to have brighter flints, but it's not the case for household objects which aren't shot or thrown vast distances.....

See how my thought process goes?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Sam,

There are lots of reasons other than aesthetics to have something polished. Polishing helps keep an item from contamination by removing a lot of the grooves on the surface of an item. That makes it good practice for things related to food, such as a fork-like object. Polishing can also help avoid corrosion, so you might think that the flint could have been polished in order to extend its life and strength for other uses than hunting.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter WHAT the non-hunting use is. By suggesting a use other than hunting, answer choice (D) weakens the argument in the stimulus. The author tries to say that because it was not just for hunting, it must have been for aesthetic purposes. Giving an alternate cause (for chores) weakens that causal relationship, even if you don't know the details of how or why polishing the flint would help in that alternate cause.

Hope that helps!

[German.Steel]

I suggest that this is a deeply flawed question. First of all, (C) works well as an "alternate explanation" type of answer - if there's "evidence that highly polished flints were used for display in religious ceremonies," then that weakens the author's claim that the extra polishing of the flint must have been for aesthetic reasons. Some might argue that (C) falls into the bucket of an "aesthetic" display; to such an argument, I would respond that this argument demonstrates a lack of the proper understanding of the English language with regards to the meaning of aesthetic, and I would also suggest that that argument demonstrates a lack of a commonsense understanding of objects used for display in religious ceremonies.

First of all, "aesthetic" is defined by Oxford English Dictionary as "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty." This accords with other definitions I've reviewed online, and also accords with my own understanding of "aesthetic." Under this definition, it is utterly lacking in support to assume that because something is produced for "display in religious ceremonies," that that thing is necessarily there for "aesthetic" purposes. I'll give several examples, just to fully demonstrate the lunacy of this assumption:

- Crosses are on display in Christian churches across the world, and used in all sorts of Christian religious ceremonies. It would be rank lunacy to claim that crosses are there for "aesthetic" reasons; the cross is there as a symbol of Jesus' death and sacrifice, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an "aesthetic" sense.
- In Catholicism, during the Mass on the first day of Lent, ashes are placed on the foreheads of those who attend. It would be rank lunacy to claim that these ashes are on display for "aesthetic" reasons; rather, the ashes are there as a symbol of death/sacrifice/etc.
- In Judaism, the "Four Species" are displayed by observant Jews on the holiday of Sukkot. It would be rank lunacy to claim that the Four Species involve any aesthetic considerations; rather, the Four Species is a "symbolic allusion to a Jew's service to God."
- At Hindu weddings, the mangalustra is a religious display that is meant to "avert the evil eye" and protect couples from evil powers in their marriage. It would be rank lunacy to claim that the mangalustra is included for aesthetic reasons.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I just want to fully demonstrate how flawed this question is, and in particular how flawed it is that (C) is apparently considered to be aligned with the notion of the extra polished flint demonstrating an "aesthetic sense," as opposed to the much more commonsense (and true to the English language) reading of (C), which is that it is an alternative explanation for the extra polished flint (and should therefore be the credited response).

(D) has its own issues, and requires more assumptions than (C) requires, and I may delve into the problems with (D) at some point. But for now I'd rather just focus on (C) because (C) is the answer that makes this question deeply flawed.

If my reasoning is off the mark anywhere, I'd love to hear it! I've been wrong before. But I don't think this is one of the those times...I think this is just a truly flawed question, the kind that, thankfully, hasn't popped up in more recent LR sections, from what I've seen.

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may have misunderstood one of the key claims in the stimulus, GS. The author is not claiming that these flints were polished solely for aesthetic reasons. The claim is just that they "possessed an aesthetic sense." In other words, they were aware of and valued something about appearances. The evidence for this is just that this degree of polishing is way more than you need for hunting purposes.

If these highly polished flints were "used for display," that suggests that they did, in fact, care about appearances. That may not be the only aspect that mattered in these ceremonies, but one could not reasonably claim that this weakens the claim that they had an aesthetic sense, when in fact it suggests that they did.

Answer D weakens the claim because the author's evidence is based on a false dilemma. They act as if there are only two options: flints get polished either for hunting or else for some alternate use that includes at least some concern about appearances. (Again, the other use need not be solely about aesthetics, but it must at least involve some aesthetic aspect). Answer D suggests that there are other uses for flints besides hunting, and that those uses may have nothing to do with aesthetics. Not that they cannot have anything to do with aesthetics, but that they may not, and that's all we need to weaken that argument.