#19 - Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species

[Adam Tyson]

There's nothing causal here, imo, Lily. The author isn't saying anything about two things going together, and concluding that one of them caused the other. Lichen and grass aren't causing smoked meat in this argument.

Try an abstract view of the argument, which is a technique I use quite often since the topic is never relevant and the structure always matters. This argument, in the abstract, is something like "we found X, which isn't very useful for purpose Y, so it was probably used instead for purpose Z."

Nothing causal here, not even a correlation, just a claim about a probable purpose. To weaken that, just raise a doubt about purpose Z, which might mean suggesting that X could have been, in this case, for purpose Y.

Don't try to force a causal analysis, or a conditional one, onto any question. If you see it, great, use it! If not, use other tools and skills to deal with what you are seeing.

[lsatstudying11]

Hi,

I have a question about understanding the argument. I first picked A and get why B is correct, but am still confused about how to interpret the argument. When I read it, I understand it to be an argument focused on the method of meat preservation. And, as the evidence indicates the presence of lichen and grass fireplaces, I read this argument as, in turn, concluding that the meat preservation technique used by the Neanderthals is smoking, as opposed to something like using salt to preserve meat. However, it seems like this is the wrong way to understand the argument, which is actually focused on explaining the presence of the lichen and grass fires. I guess I am wondering where or what in the argument structure indicates that this is an argument not after determining meat preservation methods but one that is after making sense of the existence of these lichen/grass fires that produce a lot of smoke? I am stuck. The only thing that I can think might be an indicator is the fact that the stimulus says 'many' fireplaces contain lichen and grass, which does not seem strong enough to support the idea that smoking was the preferred form of preservation.

Thanks so much for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

Think about the nature of the evidence here, lsatstudying11. The author is saying that these fireplaces probably were used to smoke meat. What's the evidence? Lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but not a lot of heat and light. That's not about how they preserved meat, but about what the fuel in the fireplaces was good for! It's saying "this isn't good stuff for producing heat and light, and it is good for preserving meat, so that's probably what it was for."

If this argument had offered evidence like "salt, another tool for preservation of meat, was in short supply in the area," then we would be looking at evidence about a competing method for meat preservation, which would change our analysis.

Pay attention to the kind of evidence presented in support of the conclusion, and weaken the argument by showing that the evidence is not good enough to support the conclusion. Focus on that relationship between premises and conclusion, because that relationship is what a weaken answer will attack.

[PresidentLSAT]

I'm having a hard time with the stimulus so reading the explanations itself isn't cutting it.

The argument concludes that this group of people (Neanderthals) preserved meat by smoking it.

An archeologist found burnt lichen and grass in many of their fireplaces. What does finding burnt lichen and grass supposed to prove?

Per the author, those two (L & G, burned) produce a lot of smoke but do not produce as much heat or light as firewood.

Where did firewood come from?
Is the author suggesting that because those two (burned) produced a lot of smoke- does it mean its purpose was the preservation of meat?

Not as much heat or light. What am I supposed to do with this information?

What I'm also more concerned about is how other students see A as a close contender. I ruled it out because what's happening in close proximitiy seems irrelevant to what Neanderthals are doing. Close proximity could be how Brooklyn natives preserved their meat which could be reasonably different from Manhattan residents.

Could someone please help me with the stimulus and my reason for ruling out answer A

[PresidentLSAT]

Think about the nature of the evidence here, lsatstudying11. The author is saying that these fireplaces probably were used to smoke meat. What's the evidence? Lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but not a lot of heat and light. That's not about how they preserved meat, but about what the fuel in the fireplaces was good for! It's saying "this isn't good stuff for producing heat and light, and it is good for preserving meat, so that's probably what it was for."

If this argument had offered evidence like "salt, another tool for preservation of meat, was in short supply in the area," then we would be looking at evidence about a competing method for meat preservation, which would change our analysis.

Pay attention to the kind of evidence presented in support of the conclusion, and weaken the argument by showing that the evidence is not good enough to support the conclusion. Focus on that relationship between premises and conclusion, because that relationship is what a weaken answer will attack.

Hello there new student here,

I think you're getting me closer. For the author saying the burning of L produces a lot of smoke but not as much heat or light as firewood. Here's me as the author, "Hey reader, the burning of lichen and grass (our main evidence), produces a lot of smoke, but not as much heat or light as firewood so let's rule out the possibility that you think they used it for heat or light. So all that smoke was to preserve meat."

B tells me there were no other plants that could effectively produce heat or light when burned. There's a slight assumption there that for Neanderthals, the burning of lichens, though not the best option from the author's perspective, was how they would get their heat and light, and that burning it wasn't because they wanted to smoke some beef.

I'm stuck on why other students see A as a contender. In close proximity to where? Other human-like primates? Lichens and grass were not exclusive to the dwellings of Neanderthals. If what was burned produced more heat than smoke, how does it cripple the conclusion that the smoke from burned lichen was for the preservation of meat. AM i missing something?

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi PresidentLSAT!

As you said, the argument breaks down like this:

Premise: Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces
Premise: A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire
Conclusion: Neanderthals probably preserved meat by smoking it

The author takes evidence that the Neanderthals created fires with lichen and grass to support the conclusion that they probably preserved their meat by smoking it, since lichen and grass produce lots of smoke, but not as much heat as wood.

There's no reason why you need to see answer choice (A) as a contender. A contender is just an answer choice that you personally want to keep around. There's no universal rule for whether an answer choice is a contender or not--answer choices are either correct or incorrect. Contenders are just the answer choices we want to keep around while we're trying to decide which answer choice is correct. You might have different contenders than someone else, and that's perfectly fine. So there's no need to worry if other test takers think an answer choice is a contender when you didn't--unless, of course, it ends up being the correct answer!

But let's look at your reasoning for answer choice (A) a bit. It states: "In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke." I'd say that when we're talking about the close proximity of fireplaces, we're not talking about Brooklyn to Manhattan. We're talking about within the same village, at least, maybe even the same dwelling. The reason why this is attractive as an answer choice to many people is because it seems like if there are other fireplaces nearby with evidence that they used wood, then they could have cooked the meat in those fireplaces with higher heat fires. But the reason this answer choice is incorrect is because that doesn't rule out the possibility that, in addition to cooking meat over wood fires, they also used lichen and grass to preserve meat by smoking it.

Answer choice (B) does a better job at weakening this argument because it tells us that the Neanderthals didn't really have any other options of things to burn. Lichen and grass wasn't a choice they made so that they could specifically preserve meat by smoking it. It was just all that they had available to them to use to cook the meat.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[PresidentLSAT]

Thanks Kelsey,

I'm just a bit confused by the last portion of the answer. I thought I was weakening the argument but opening the possibility that what was thought to be a mechanism of meat preservation was actually a source of heat and light.

Per your quote, “ Lichen and grass wasn't a choice they made so that they could specifically preserve meat by smoking it. It was just all that they had available to them to use to cook the meat.” I

There’s still some support for the author that even though they had no choice, his conclusion still holds that they preserved meat by smoking it.

Many thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi PresidentLSAT,

You are right on that we are looking for something that says that the Neanderthals were possibly using the grasses for heat/cooking. That's what answer choice (B) is doing by explaining that they didn't have other options for heat/cooking. That weakens the conclusion the author is trying to draw here by saying that the presence of the grasses shows that they were smoking meat. If the only option for any fire is grasses, you can't really draw a conclusion based on what the choice of using grasses shows.

Let's think about the structure here.

P1: We found these grasses in Neanderthal fireplaces.
P2: These grasses are good for smoking, not great for heat/cooking

C: Neanderthals were smoking meats.

If the only thing to burn was grasses, it doesn't matter what their most efficient use was. It was what they had to burn, and even if it was WORSE light/heat than wood, Neanderthals wouldn't know that. If it's all there was, it's all they could use for comparison. That's how answer choice (B) weakens the authors conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[shibascream]

The thing that stumps me about answer choice (B) is that you would need to assume that Neanderthals needed or wanted artificial sources of heat or light. I initially selected answer choice (A) because I didn't like the other answers.

My current understanding of why answer choice (B) is correct is that it's providing us with another purpose for the lichen/grass-- it was used to produce heat or light because there were no other plants that could fulfill this purpose as effectively at the time. However, I feel like it's a little unfair that we should be expected to assume that the Neanderthals *needed* extra sources of heat and light. What if the Neanderthals were perfectly happy with only relying on the light from the sun and didn't feel the need to create extra sources of light? Maybe they just stayed inactive during the night or when it's dark? Also, what if they were more resistant to cold temperatures than modern humans and/or they migrated to warmer locations with the changing seasons so they didn't need an extra heat source? I did leave (B) as a contender, but I eventually crossed it out because I felt that the information about "heat or light" was ultimately irrelevant.

Is there something that I'm not understanding or I'm missing in my reasoning? Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi shibascream!

Your reasoning is generally correct. You're right to point out that there's nothing establishing for sure that Neanderthals needed or wanted artificial sources of heat.

You're also right to note that (B) is "providing us with another purpose for the lichen/grass." Answer choice (B) provides us with an alternative explanation. Rather than the evidence indicating that Neanderthals preserved meats by smoking them, perhaps the evidence indicates that they used the lichens and grass for other purposes like heat and light. This doesn't require that they needed heat and light but rather just indicates that burning the lichens/grass could serve these alternative purposes. If it could, then this undercuts the conclusion that this evidence points to smoking as a means of preservation.