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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)

The stimulus sets up an interesting argument that appears fairly reasonable. A mastodon skeleton
has been found containing a human-made projectile dissimilar to those of the part of Eurasia closest
to North America and because Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the
peak of the Ice Age, the first Eurasian settlers of North America probably came from a more distant
part of Eurasia than the area nearest North America. To make a very rough analogy using dialects,
it is like a resident of Washington, D.C. saying, “The visitors we just met did not sound like they
were from Virginia, so they must be from a much more distant part of the U.S.” Reading that rough
analogy, you can see that the speaker has assumed that the visitors are from the U.S. Of course, that
does not have to be the case—they could be from England or France or elsewhere. The same form
of assumption has occurred in the argument, and the author has assumed that the projectile is of
Eurasian origin.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. This answer hurts the argument by indicating that
the projectile is apparently not Eurasian, suggesting that the first Eurasian settlers in North America
could have come from any part of Eurasia, including the area closest to North America.

Answer choice (B): This is the most attractive wrong answer, but regardless, this answer does not
hurt the argument. Some students attempt to conclude that since the people were nomadic, they
could have moved to areas farther away and found projectiles like the one in the mastodon. However,
even though these individuals remained nomadic, they were apparently nomadic within the area of
Eurasia closest to North America because the answer clearly states, “The people who occupied the
Eurasia area closest to North America...” Hence, they did not necessarily occupy other areas and this
answer does not hurt the argument.

Answer choice (C): This Opposite answer supports the argument by showing that the projectile in
the mastodon was not a one-time, anomalous occurrence. If other, similar projectiles come to light,
then the author’s position would be strengthened.

Answer choice (D): This Opposite answer supports the argument by connecting other artifacts of the
same age as the projectile to parts of Eurasia more distant than the area of Eurasia closest to North
America. This adds further evidence to the idea that the first Eurasian settlers of North America
probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia than the area nearest North America.

Answer choice (E): This Opposite answer supports the argument by indicating that the part of
Eurasia closest to North America may not have been inhabited just before the Ice Age. If this area
was uninhabitable, then it is more likely that settlers coming to North America came from more
distant regions.

[lizk89]

[LSAT question removed by admin. Please reference October 2001, LR2, #20]

Okay, so after reading the explanations I've understood that the archeologist is faulted for assuming a false dichotomy. That is, he/she assumes that if not from the near part of Eurasia, then (necessarily) from the far part of Eurasia.

Still, I am 110% certain I would have gotten this incorrect on test day since I can't wrap my head around the stimulus. For instance, what is the significance of the premise that appears just before the conclusion: "since Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the speak of the ice Age?" What does that premise mean and how does it relate to the concluding sentence? Does it relate to the earlier premise that "mastedon became extict at the peak of the Ice age."

And if the mastedon is North American, can't we reasonably assume that it was killed in North America using projectiles that were perhaps of North American origin as opposed to Eurasian?
In other words, why are the Eurasians assumed to be responsible for the projectile? Is it because we assume that Eurasians were the very first settlers on the North American continent?

oh my god, I've seriously confused myself and probably my reader as well.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Thanks for your question! This is indeed a rather confusing stimulus.

Basically, the author is trying to figure out the origin of the projectile found in the mastodon: did it belong to North American settlers who had migrated from the part of Eurasia closest to North America, or whether it belongs to settlers who had migrated from a more distant part of Eurasia? It could not have been the former, the author claims, so it must be the latter.

Clearly, the author assumes that the only settlers in the North American continent who could have used projectiles are those who had migrated from Eurasia. What if there are native American humanoids who also used projectiles to kill mastodons? This is a false dichotomy, and (A) weakens the argument by suggesting that the projectile did not necessarily originate in Eurasia.

The reason why the author mentions the Ice Age in the premise is because the North American mastodon became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age. If the Eurasians had settled there before that time, they could have killed the mastodon because both lived there at the same time. That's the only reason why the author discussed the Ice Age: she wanted us to know that the Eurasians could have been responsible for killing it, and thus the projectile could have been theirs. Of course, just because it could have been does not mean that it was: and that's exactly the problem with the author's conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[lizk89]

Super clear to me now, thanks Nikki!

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Nikki,

Your explanation was very good! I would just like to add in a few things:

1) By showing that the projectile did not necessarily originate in Eurasia as choice A did, does that help essentially show that the FIRST EURASIAN settlers could have been from either part of Eurasia (close or far), since there really is no good proof for either anymore?

2)can we say this projects a false dilemma type scenario? For instance, it makes us think there are only two alternatives, when there are quite possibly many more...

Let me know what you think! I look forward to your response =)

-Kristina

[Nikki Siclunov]

Kristina,

You're absolutely correct on both counts.

Let me address your second point first: Yes, the author is guilty of a false dilemma, assuming (incorrectly) that the only humans who could have hunted down the mastodon came from either near or far Eurasia. Clearly, there could have been a third source of migration... perhaps from South America, outer space, wherever . So, the conclusion does assume a false dilemma.

You're correct in your first observation as well: if the projectile didn't come from Eurasia, then we have no idea from which part of Eurasia the first Eurasian settlers came. The projectile is no longer useful as evidence either way, so they could have come from either part of Eurasia.

Good job!

[kristinaroz93]

Dear Nikki,

Thank you for your swift response, as always your explanation was super clear!

[jcough346]

I thought B was correct because if the people were nomadic then these Eurasians could have settled there at some point along the way?

[Adam Tyson]

The issue here, jcough, is that the projectile was unlike anything found in that part of Euarasia up to that time. Answer B talks about some nomadic folks within that part of Eurasia, but they are still from (and presumably moving around solely in) that area. So where did the weird projectile come from? Our author thinks it must have come from a more distant part of Eurasia. Answer B does nothing to hurt that, unlike answer A, which tells us that it couldn't have come from ANY part of Eurasia.

I hope that helps clear it up for you. This is a confusing one, for sure!

[avengingangel]

wow nikki, yes, thank you so much for your incredibly clear explanation of this atrocious stimulus!! (& thanks lizk89 for asking the question about the ice age) after reviewing this question for far too long i still was not understanding what in the heck it was trying to do. didn't see the flaw at all, etc. but i get it now.

to confirm, would answer choice d be an opposite answer ?? as in, it supports the author's conclusion (&i therefore her false dillema) ?

thanks !