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

[Robert Carroll]

lsathelpwanted,

Oh, if I can do any good by continuing the discussion, "that part of Eurasia closest to North America" is just intending to name a certain part of Eurasia. We could name parts of Eurasia by saying "the Gobi Desert" or "within 5 miles of any formerly-used katorga site", or as "that part of Eurasia closest to North America." It's hard to say what the precise boundaries are, but the argument doesn't rely on them, so the inherent vagueness of that named part isn't a problem.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

So I did get confused after reading that last sentence because I was wondering what the mastodon and projectile that was found had anything to do with where the first Eurasian settlers came from...are we supposed to connect those two pieces of information by assuming the projectile must have come from a further part of Eurasia as well? Was that what the stimulus' argument was assuming? is that why this argument is bad?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

Yes, I think the argument thinks that the projectile comes from a distant part of Eurasia, so so did the North American settlers who killed the mastodon.

Robert Carroll

[Rawan Barakat]

Hello, can anyone explain to me what answer choice (B) is trying to say and why it is incorrect. I have been trying to make sense of it but no progress so far. Any help clearing that up will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

There is more complete information about answer B in the official explanation at the top of page 1 in this thread, Rawan Barakat, and I also discussed it in one of the last posts on that page, so check there too, but the short answer is that answer B says "the locals moved around a lot," and that does nothing to hurt the argument about where the projectile came from because the stimulus makes it clear that the locals almost certainly were not the ones who used that projectile.

[lemonade42]

Hi,

I'm still confused by the wording in choice (A). I understand how the answer hurts the argument by indicating that the projectile is apparently not Eurasian. Since it's not Eurasian, then doesn't that mean the first European settlers in North America are not from Eurasia at all? But, why does the rest of the answer say "the first European settlers in North America could have come from any part of Eurasia?

[EmilyOwens]

Hi,

I'm still confused by the wording in choice (A). I understand how the answer hurts the argument by indicating that the projectile is apparently not Eurasian. Since it's not Eurasian, then doesn't that mean the first European settlers in North America are not from Eurasia at all? But, why does the rest of the answer say "the first European settlers in North America could have come from any part of Eurasia?

Hi Lemonade,

You are correct in your analysis of answer choice (A): this choices opens the possibility that the projectile, and by extension, the settlers who used it, are not from Eurasia at all.

By eliminating the assumption that the projectile is connected to Eurasia, we are no longer able to use it to determine which Eurasian settlers came from where and when based on information from the stimulus. The two variables (projectile and Eurasian settlers) aren’t related!

However, we do know that settlers came from somewhere within Eurasia just before the peak of the Ice Age, according to the stimulus. We can’t determine exactly where, though. They could have come from the area closest to North America (or not), irrespective of the projectile’s origins.

I hope this helps!