#20- Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon

[Mi Kal]

Hi,

After all the great explanations, I still don't get it.

Looking at the last sentence, where the Conclusion resides, "Thus, since Eurasians did not settle (-ES)...until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age (SBPIA),..." wouldn't that be diagrammed as (instead of -ES you'd have ES because of the "until")

ES SBPIA

So basically it would be saying that Eurasians did settle "before the peak of the Ice Age." Is that just totally wrong? Doesn't "until" negate the Sufficient? And if the Sufficient is that "Eurasians did not settle" (-ES) that would actually mean that Eurasians did settle.

Additionally, the use of different parts of Eurasia intertwined with just Eurasia, how would someone be able to separate the two? And wouldn't a separation be adding to the stimulus (when what I believe to be the true comparison is between Eurasia and North America)? And I don't see how a projectile that was not used in Eurasia weakens the argument. How do we know that the author, or actually the response to the author, knows every single projectile made and used by the Eurasians? Isn't that assuming to much?

Thanks.

Michael

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Michael,

I think what may be happening in your case is that you are getting caught up in the proper diagramming of the stimulus, but not seeing the overall picture of what the author is arguing. Let's look at your second set of questions first.

The stimulus is not comparing or dividing up Eurasia from North America and that is the definite problem with her logic. In fact, she's giving us an argument about projectile points from Near and Far Eurasia but not considering how that point which was found in the Mastodon, may in fact, be from some other humanoids who were hunting it. What if was (and go with me on this one) the ancestors to Vikings from Greenland and they had sailed to North America to go hunt Mastodon? Our author, doesn't consider that possibility (even though it's an unlikely one). She has not identified the possibility the Greenland pre-Vikings may have had their own projectile points and if they did, could it match that point in the Mastodon? If it does, that definitely weakens her argument that the point came from far Eurasia.

That is a typical Weakening scenario which we refer to as "Incomplete Information." Her reliance on her evidence is incomplete. But as far as her understanding of Eurasian projectile points, we have to assume it's perfect for the purposes of the stimuli because it is not called into question. Because it is incomplete Information, we need to now look in the answer choices for statement that offers either new possibilities or damaging information. Here, Answer (A) fits the latter category nicely. The fact that the point is not from any Eurasian group before or during the Ice Age seriously weakens her conclusion that "the first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia" And thus, is the correct answer choice.

Thansk for the great question!

[Mi Kal]

Hi Nicholas,

Thanks for your response. I have looked at the Stimulus, answers, and all the responses in this post to this problem so much that even looking at it now confuses me. I think I probably just need to let this one go. I just don't understand it. I cannot seem to understand how the author got from point A to B.

Thanks for trying.

Michael

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Michael,

Let's give this a shot just with a quick breakdown. What's the argument:

• Premise: In North America, we've found a dead mastodon from peak Ice Age with a projectile in it.
• Premise: This projectile is different from any found in Eurasia area close to North America.
• Premise: People in North America probably came from Eurasia right before they killed this mastodon.
• Conclusion: These people who killed mastodon probably came from a different part of Eurasia.

We've kinda got some causal reasoning here; we think that because the North American folks didn't have much time to develop a new projectile style, they must have brought this projectile style from somewhere else in Eurasia.

It's a Weaken question, so we've gotta ask: What if these people didn't come from somewhere else in Eurasia? Could it be possible that this projectile doesn't really give us good evidence to suggest they came from somewhere else?

In an answer choice, we want something to show that, hey, even though we found this projectile and it's not like anything in Kamchatka, maybe this we don't care, maybe this evidence is no good.

This is what answer choice (A) does; it says, "so what you didn't find any projectiles like that from that part of Eurasia? You didn't find any projectiles like that from anywhere else instead either, so your evidence is no good! We might not have any evidence to say they came from that one place, but we've got no evidence to suggest they came from anywhere else either. Try again."

Does this help clear this one up?

[Mi Kal]

Hi Jonathan,

Great explanation.

I believe I have a clearer view of it now. But, to make sure I understand. I believe you are saying that the answer (in a very non-explicit, convoluted way) is stating that they don't have any idea where the projectile came from. It could have come from Eurasia and it could have come from someplace else (even though that is not explicitly stated in the answer choice). They just don't know where the projectile came from. And since they don't know where it came from, that weakens the argument. To me, the answer choice didn't reflect that and I don't know why. That was a tough one.

Thank you so much for your help.

Michael

[Jonathan Evans]

You got it! Good job! Sometimes when something really stumps me, it helps to toss out all of my existing analysis and just take a fresh look at it. Therefore, if on the test you're hitting a wall with a particular argument, just circle it, make a guess (even just a random guess), and move on. No one question is a "hill to die on." They're all worth the same. Go get the rest of the points available in the section. If there's time, take a fresh look at that hard question. Try to game it out succinctly and quickly from scratch. What was elusive at first may become clearer viewed anew.

[Mi Kal]

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you so much.

Michael

[lsathelpwanted]

My only bit of confusion can be solved with just one question answered:

Where is the skeleton?

[Robert Carroll]

lsathelpwanted,

The mastodon appears to have been found in North America.

Robert Carroll

[lsathelpwanted]

lsathelpwanted,

The mastodon appears to have been found in North America.

Robert Carroll

Thank you for playing the game Mr. Robert! Unfortunately, I have talked myself out of my argument. For misinterpreting the word "that". The LSAT makes me do things like look up the definitions for words like "that".

I thought "that part of Eurasia by N.A." was ambiguous. I thought it was meant to refer to a specific small section (say a frozen tundra land) of Eurasia by N.A.

but "that" part, is meant in a general sense to be referring to the "whole" of the subsection itself, not a specific place within it (like a frozen tundra area), as the part of Eurasia that is nearest to N.A.

I promise I don't sit around trying to ask nonsensical questions. My best advice to anyone who read this is to just try and forget it. Forever. And THAT"S all I gotta say about that.