#5 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Sdaoud17]

Can you explain to me how the passage the supports (C)? because It looks like an opinion to me ? I was between C and E , and E sounded OKAy ! so I picked because I could not find anything that really support it in the 1st Paragraph ?

Thank you

[Steve Stein]

In that one, answer choice C says that the Aurignacians had some (one or more) highly specialized roles. In the first paragraph of the passage, the author points out that the paintings discussed were likely created by "a distinct group of artists." This is a specialized social role. The problem with E is that while it's possible that the people also carved such things on their spears, the author only discusses paintings.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[adunay]

From reading the passage the first time, my understanding of the first paragraph (starting at line 8) is that it represents the views of "some anthropologists", not necessarily the author. Thus, when I read lines 17-21, which references the "distinct group of artists" that direct the reader to Answer C, I assumed the author was still speaking to the views of "some anthropologists" rather than him or herself.

Basically, I'm wondering what I missed in that paragraph that would have alerted me to the fact that the author agreed with the view that "the high level of quality suggests that Aurignacian art was created by a distinct group of artists...".

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi adunay,

Thanks for your question. Let's take a look at the paragraph more closely:

The passage begins by outlining a quandary (why did our ancestors engage in representational art) and then presents an example of such art: the images in 25,000-year-old cave paintings made by the Aurignacians. In lines 8-17, the author outlines a possible explanation, which is stated - as you correctly observe - as the viewpoint of "some anthropologists." In their view, Aurignacians were able to execute such paintings because they could afford to spend the time perfecting their skills.

Then, in line 17, the author offers her own interpretation of the anthropologists' view: "in other words...". Unlike the discussion in line 11 ("the reasoning goes..."), here there is no rhetorical distance between the anthropologists' and the author's viewpoints. Instead, the author tacitly endorses their explanation, adding her own spin on it: there must have been a distinct group of artists. The last point does not appear to belong to the anthropologists themselves, and - even if it does - the author is clearly in agreement with it. No objections are presented to counter it, either in this or in subsequent paragraphs.

The phrase "in other words" suggests an interpretation of an earlier viewpoint. Unless it is specifically attributed to someone else, you can assume this is the author's own interpretation.

Let me know if this makes sense.

Thanks!

[Sophia123]

Hi,

I was between C and D for this question and ended up selecting D because I did not classify artists as a social role. I picked D because I thought the fact that some anthropologists saw the paintings as evidence that the Aurignacians had a more secure life than the Neanderthals could mean that their environment was less hostile. During the question I thought that was a fair inference to make, but did I just assume too much? How should I prevent making that mistake in the future?

Thank you in advance!

-Sophia

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Sophia,

It is important to distinguish between viewpoints in a passage. Line 9 is the viewpoint of the anthropologists ("Some anthropologists see these paintings as evidence that the Aurignacians had a more secure life than the Neanderthals.") The question is about the author's viewpoint. The author actually throws doubt on the anthropologist's viewpoint! Line 24: "Curiously, however, the paintings were usually placed in areas accessible only with extreme effort and completely unilluminated by natural light. This makes it unlikely that these representational cave paintings arose simply out of a love of beauty or pride in artistry." The author tells us another group's viewpoint at line 35 (" many anthropologists hypothesize that the paintings were also intended to provide a means of ensuring a steady supply of food.")

So always be careful when asked about a viewpoint. You want to make sure you know WHOSE viewpoint you're being asked about, and WHOSE viewpoint you're reading in the passage. I often write the letter "V" next to the passage with a subscript for the person or group whose viewpoint is represented.

Hope this helps!

[cindyhylee87]

Hi,

When I was reviewing this thread, I found that the reason I selected (C) is different from the explanation provided above. The reason I chose (C) was because of line 53 and onward. It states shamans or religious leaders and this seems to me that they could be defined as specialized social roles and make (C) the right answer.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Cyndee,

Well done! The evidence you have found also provides adequate evidence to support this answer choice. Both in its discussion of the skill necessary to create such art and in the subsequent discussion of ritual uses of such art, there is adequate evidence to support the idea of "highly specialized social roles." While the author might disagree with some anthropologists that perhaps this art was done just for aesthetic purposes, the author does not necessarily disagree with the assessment of the requisite skill to create such paintings. If there are multiple sources of evidence to support a credited response, so much the better! Thanks for the good analysis!

[Heart Shaped Box]

Hi there, this is my first time posting, I have a question about E if you guys could help me out.

I understand that we can't find it anywhere in the passage about painting on weapons, however, the Q stem reads which one of the followings the author would "agree" based on the passage, you guys don't think the author would probably "agree" with E based what those A ppl did on the wall? (same purpose -- power over animals for hunting, same philosophy/method -- superstition ) It's more like an inference question as opposed to one where there needs to be direct support coming from the passage, in which case we might be able to rule it out by "it wasn't mentioned in or there is no support from the passage".

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Heart Shaped Box,

Thanks for the question! Remember that we are looking for the answer the author would most likely agree with. I hear what you're saying about E, but the truth is we just have no idea one way or the other, because it is so far outside the scope of the information we do have. C is a much stronger answer, and for a question like this you're never going to need to stretch as far as E would be a stretch in this question.

Hope that helps!