LR Problem Set #1, Q: 96

[moshei24]

I'm confused about Jones's reasoning. Why couldn't the ancestors have migrated South? Why is it referring to the people migrating South? Can you explain the entire question please? Both sides, please. I understand that the tools may not have been found because they decomposed according to Smith, but I'm not sure how Jones's argument makes sense in the first place, unless it doesn't matter if it does or not, and I just have to accept it how it is.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Moshe,

This is an awesome question, one of my favorites. Let's look at the reasoning more closely.

The entire framework of the problem is causal. From an argument standpoint, Jones opens by stating a claim being made by scientists that the South America tools can be attributed to migrating peoples. Jones indicates that this claim is incorrect, and Jones' argument is that, roughly, there were no tools found along the route of migration that were old enough to show migration. In a sense, Jones argues that the cause of no tools being found between Alaska and South America older than 13,000 years is that there were no people migrating through the area.

Smith isn't so sure about that. Smith responds that the cause of no tools being found is that they might have decomposed. Literally, he has a possible alternate cause for the lack of tools along the migration route.

It's tricky, because the causal relationships are talking about why something isn't there.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[moshei24]

I'm confused as to how you see that Jones attributes the tools to migrating peoples. Why can't it just be that the ancestors crossed over into America and then they migrated to South America, and then the descendants of these ancestors, the peoples, built the tools in South America, and that's why there weren't any tools along the path?

[Dave Killoran]

Please re-read my answer and take a few more minutes to consider this question--it's not an easy one. I said that Jones says that the cause of no tools is no people (and not that these migrating people made these tools, as you attributed to me; he would actually dispute that statement).

Jones' conclusion: he says that "this cannot be correct" in reference to peoples whose ancestors ancestors first crossed into the Americas via Alaska. What is his evidence? That these people must have been migrating earlier but that no tools were found along the route. His evidence indicates he believes that there were no people there to leave the tools, and thus that the cause of the absence of tools is an absence of people. The whole context of this is the migration. All that "absence of" stuff makes this a much harder than average problem.

Thanks

[moshei24]

So we're assuming that the ancestors never migrated? And only these people migrated South? But even if the fact that the scientist attribute the migration is based on the fact that the ancestors never went South, I still don't understand why would there have to be tools during their migration trip in the first place?

I'm still confused. There's got to be something that I'm missing here...

Sorry.

[moshei24]

Oh, wait a second.

Is the reasoning of Jones as follows:

P1: Scientists attribute tools to peoples whose ancestors migrated from Siberia to Alaska, and dates the tools as being 13,000 years old.
P2: Can't be true because in order for those people to have gotten to South America, they would have had to have begun migrating more than 13,000 years ago, and there are no tools anywhere between and including Alaska and South America.

What I still don't see is why that's a problem? Why couldn't they have migrated all the way to South America and then 13,000 years ago have built the first tools, with that being the reason they only found tools 13,000 years ago, in South America, where their migration ended?

[Dave Killoran]

You're actually confusing yourself. This isn't about all migration forever, this is about attribution of certain tools found in South America, and whether a certain people left those tools. Scientists say it was those people who left those tools. Jones says it wasn't these people who left those tools, because their ancestors would have left tools along the migration route, and there aren't any. He doesn't offer any theories on who left the tools in South America. Smith says that doesn't prove your point, and brings in the point about decomposition and the bogs.

Focus on what's being said by the speakers, not alternative theories as to what could have occurred. This isn't one of those problems you can glance at and get immediately--take your time, re-read the argument, and let it sink in for a while.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

What I still don't see is why that's a problem? Why couldn't they have migrated all the way to South America and then 13,000 years ago have built the first tools, with that being the reason they only found tools 13,000 years ago, in South America, where their migration ended?

It's a problem for Jones because he thinks that tools should be found along the migration route. He thinks he's right, and he believes this scenario, and we know this from the statements he made.

What you are doing is arguing for an alternate theory that he doesn't believe, and so it's not really helpful here to consider it.

[moshei24]

Okay, I think it's basically clear now.

Thank you.