#8 - Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree

[Adam Tyson]

Even if some details were erased, mahsan, we still apparently have enough detail available to determine that the footprints are from feet that strongly resemble hominid feet, and that they appear to be lined up opposite of what we would normally expect of hominid footprints. Because we still have at least that much information, some missing details don't do much to weaken Tyson's claim. "I have enough data to draw this conclusion" isn't really harmed by a response of "your data is incomplete," because the first person never claimed they had all the data, but only that they had enough data.

[ashpine17]

After reading the stimulus I still thought it was a possibility humans made those footsteps despite the strange cross walking pattern because maybe they did it on accident or on purpose while doing some activity that altered their natural gait. I had a lot of trouble with C and still don’t understand why it’s incorrect even after reading the other explanations. Is the fact that those human like steps were located on site M, which is a mile away from the prints in question at site G that makes it problematic? Does it also potentiall strengthen Tyson’s argument since those steps look human- like?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ashpine,

You are correct that answer choice (C) here actually strengthens the argument because it shows that there were likely humans in the area. That increases the likelihood that the footprints at G were human, as we have structural evidence that they were human, and now we have an additional data point---we have human like prints nearby.

Hope that helps!