#20 - Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Flow,

First let's look at answer choice B. Remember that for a weaken answer, you don't have to totally invalidate the conclusion, you just have to make it less likely to be true. The conclusion is that the predominant theory is wrong, so an answer choice that helps explain why the predominant theory is in fact correct would weaken. Answer choice B does this by saying that maybe the painters did eat sea animals and did paint them, but those paintings didn't survive. If that's true, the author's argument loses a bit of force, even if it seems like an unlikely scenario to you. Imagine it the other way: if 100% of the paintings survived, that would strengthen the conclusion by ruling out the scenario above.

On the other hand, let's look at answer choice C. We already know that the cave paintings depict many land animals, so adding answer choice C to the stimulus doesn't impact the veracity of the conclusion. I see your point here re "currently", but the language says "current diet," which is different from what they were eating at the exact time they made the paintings. Diet implies the full spectrum of what someone eats generally, not what they were eating at the specific moment they made the paintings.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[Adam354]

Predominant theory: paintings are based on diet
Argument against predominant theory: paintings are not based on diet.
Reasoning, they had to eat sea animals, but there are no paintings of them.
To weaken the argument against predominant theory, and therefore eliminate answers, we need to show paintings could be based on diet. We can do that with:
1) any information indicating diet could be shown in paintings (land or sea)
2) any information indicating sea animals were not eaten

A & E indicate diet of land animals, could be on paintings
D indicates no sea animals needed to be eaten
B indicates, sea animals could have been on paintings who were washed away

C doesn't mention what they ate like A and E do. So it could be possible they ate only sea animals while living on the islands, but still only painted land animals, which would strengthen the author's argument against the predominant theory, as opposed to weaken it.

[Adam Tyson]

Good analysis, well done.

[ashpine17]

isn't d possibly denying a premise since an implication of this choice is that they did NOT need to eat sea animals on the journey because they had the preserved meat?

[ashpine17]

i've also heard arguments that it doesn't actually attack a premise since the whole eating sea animals during the journey thing was just a proposed explanation; it wasn't actually shown to have happened.

which is it?

[Paul Popa]

Hi Ashpine,

Great questions! I would argue that sea animals is in fact a premise the author believes to be true; it goes farther than just a mere proposal. D is incorrect for the reason you mentioned: it weakens the argument by showing that the painters did not actually need to eat any sea animals due to their sophisticated supply of preserved meats. This ultimately undermines a core premise of the author's argument. Hope this helps!