- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Jun 09, 2016
- Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:43 pm
#35910
Hi, Wulflov,
Your analysis is good; there are certainly different ways to attack a conclusion. In this case, you could find information that would cast doubt on:
If we start to consider larger issues such as whether Neanderthals smoked meat, we might find ourselves on a bit of a wild-goose chase. Usually, it's advisable to remain as close to the explicit facts in the argument as possible.
In addition, the narrower issue of the purpose of these fires is itself part of a broader conclusion. To paraphrase:
Thus, my "moral of this story" lesson from this discussion would be when dealing with strengthen and weaken questions, try to keep your focus as tight as possible on the core point at issue/flaw in the reasoning. You can always broaden your scope if necessary.
I hope this helps!
Your analysis is good; there are certainly different ways to attack a conclusion. In this case, you could find information that would cast doubt on:
- The purpose of the fires.
OR
Whether the Neanderthals preserved meat by smoking at all.
If we start to consider larger issues such as whether Neanderthals smoked meat, we might find ourselves on a bit of a wild-goose chase. Usually, it's advisable to remain as close to the explicit facts in the argument as possible.
In addition, the narrower issue of the purpose of these fires is itself part of a broader conclusion. To paraphrase:
- The Neanderthals (1) probably preserved meat (2) by smoking it (3) by using these fires.
Thus, my "moral of this story" lesson from this discussion would be when dealing with strengthen and weaken questions, try to keep your focus as tight as possible on the core point at issue/flaw in the reasoning. You can always broaden your scope if necessary.
I hope this helps!