#11 - Biologist: Many paleontologists have suggested that

[sgd2114]

Hi,

I mistakenly chose answer (C) for this question. After reviewing, I understand why answer (B) is correct. The argument in the stimulus basically refutes the paleontologists' suggestion (that difficulty adapting to ice ages caused evolution of the human brain) by saying that other animals did not experience the same causal relationship. In a way, the biologist inadvertently strengthens the paleontologists' suggestion, by saying no cause / no effect, right? Regardless, the reasoning is flawed because the relationship could exist among humans without necessarily existing among animals.

But I was hoping someone might help explain why (A) and (C) are incorrect. Is it because the stimulus is causal and these answers provide flaws in conditional reasoning? Is (C) wrong because we are concerned with what is sufficient to produce the change (difficulty adapting to ice ages), not what is necessary?

Thank you.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi sgd,

Good question!

The paleontologists' prevailing view is that the ice age produced changes in humans' brains. The biologist rejects this argument, reasoning that since many other species also lived through the ice age and didn't show changes in their brains, something other than the ice age must have been responsible for the changes in human brains. This is causal reasoning, not necessary/sufficient reasoning.

Answer choice (C) fails to weaken the biologists' argument since no one has pointed to events other than the ice age as causes of changes in the brains of various species. Even if an event like the ice age is needed to produce a change in one species, but isn't needed to produce the same change in another species, we do know that all species on earth experienced the same event at the same time. Since no one has argued that the ice age is necessary to bring about the evolutionary changes, we can discard this answer choice.

Answer choice (A) is off-point for similar reasons: neither the biologist nor the paleontologists have argued that the ice age was necessary to bring about the evolutionary changes. They are arguing about whether the ice age was a cause of these changes at all.

I hope this helps clear things up. Good luck studying!

[pasu1223]

Hello,

I narrowed this down to B and E, and during the test went with B but marked it for review and now I can't figure out why I preferred B to D.

I get that B is the correct answer in that the biologist is not considering that a causal relationship for one species does not have to be a causal relationship for another species.

Is E wrong because it is addressing the logic of "most paleontologists," and not the argument of the biologist?

Thanks for the help!

Patrick

[Adam Tyson]

I assume you meant to say " I can't figure out why I preferred B to E"? In that case, you are correct - E is not addressing the biologist's argument but that of the paleontologists, and we were asked what was wrong with the biologist's argument. Good job, Patrick! We always learn more, and better, by reviewing our own work and teaching ourselves why one answer is better or worse than another. That's the way to do it!