#2 - Ancient humans in eastern North America hunted mammoths

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[tizwvu34]

I am getting turned around and thoroughly confused on this question. I was able to get answer choice A as the correct answer mainly because B C D and E are all obvious wrong answers. I am not able to see why A is a necessary assumption?

[James Finch]

Hi tizwvu,

The issue here is that an entirely new element appears in the conclusion (occupation of settlement at the time the engraving was done) that wasn't in any of the premises. This makes this question a Supporter Assumption one, in which we need to tie this new element in the conclusion to one of the premises (similar to a Justify approach). With that in mind, we can Prephrase to get a general idea of what the correct answer choice should look like: the engraving of the mammoth bone is assumed to a) have been done at the settlement, and b) done when the settlement was occupied, so that it couldn't have been brought in from elsewhere. (A) corresponds with the second Prephrase, so it's likely the correct answer choice; however, we can still test it with the Assumption Negation Technique:

The engraving wasn't made during the period the settlement was occupied

The engraving doesn't necessarily show that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths were in the area

Works like a charm, so this is definitely the correct answer.

Hope this clears things up!

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.
Is answer choice B incorrect because when applying the Denial Test it doesn't make the conclusion fall apart? B denied would be: "the fossil on which the engraving was made WAS a mammoth bone". Which supports or is reinstating the conclusion. I chose this answer but now that I'm reviewing I think this is the reason it's wrong. Am I on the right track?

Thanks in advance

[Robert Carroll]

GGIBA003,

Answer choice (B) is a Shell Game wrong answer - the argument does not stand or fall based on whether the fossil was a mammoth fossil. It makes no difference - the engraving could have been on inorganic stone and the argument wouldn't be affected by that. I don't think its negation supports the conclusion. The "fossil" aspect of the stimulus is a red herring - the fossil has an engraving that depicts a mammoth.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi Robert,
I completely missed the difference that the bone "depicts a mammal" when answering this question. Thank you for clarifying that!

[lemonade42]

Does this mean we have to assume that the engraving depicting the mammoth is showing us that mammoths are present at the time the engraving is made? Because at first, that was my prephrase for an assumption, since maybe the mammoth engraving could be showing someone remembering about the time when mammoths were not extinct.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lemonade,

Yes, but just to be clear, "we" (meaning you and I) don't have to assume anything. It's the person making this terrible argument who is making several assumptions here.

This argument in a nutshell is: a fossil (that has a mammoth engraved on it) was found in an ancient settlement. So the ancient settlement was occupied while mammoths were still living in the region.

First, the author of the argument is assuming that the engraving was made while mammoths were still living, as you mentioned in your question. While this may be true, it's also completely possible that the engraving was made long after the mammoth disappeared. (For example, if I make an engraving of a dinosaur, does that mean that I was alive when the dinosaurs were?)

This assumption (that the engraving was made while the mammoth still lived) is a completely reasonable prephrase and would be the correct answer if it showed up in the answer choices.

However, it is not the only assumption being made in this argument. Arguments often have many assumptions.

The conclusion of this argument isn't that the engraving was made during the time of mammoths, but the settlement was occupied during the time of the mammoths. So not only is the argument assuming the engraving was made while mammoths were alive in the area, it's also assuming the engraving was made at the same time as the settlement. Otherwise, it would have been possible for the engraving to have been made during the mammoths being alive, but the engraving was made long before the settlement and was found or passed down for hundreds or thousands of years before ending up in the settlement.

[willwants170]

I picked A because everything else were bad answers. But I don't believe A is the right answer. It allows for room in the argument that the settlement was occupied after the mammoths went extinct, and the engraving made during the time the settlement was occupied was descendants honoring their ancestors. It would ruin the conclusion that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in the area. Thoughts?

[willwants170]

I picked A because everything else were bad answers. But I don't believe A is the right answer. It allows for room in the argument that the settlement was occupied after the mammoths went extinct, and the engraving made during the time the settlement was occupied was descendants honoring their ancestors. It would ruin the conclusion that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in the area. Thoughts?

In order to pick A, I have to assume what lemonade said, that the engraving depicting the mammoth is showing us that mammoths are present at the time the engraving is made. Jeff says we don't have to make the assumption but clearly, answer A depends on that assumption. Does he mean we have to notice that the author is making this assumption and apply it to answer A? I was taught not to make any extraneous assumptions in LR, and making this assumption that is implied but isn't explicit in the argument was uncomfortable.