#23 - Anthropologist: Every human culture has taboos against

[Lsat_student2019]

Hi,

I am a bit confused on how to eliminate answer choice E. I understand that unwarranted is just asserting that the argument lacks some support. However, I read the answer choice " describes a hypothesis about the sequence of events involved in the origins of a phenomenon, and then argues that those events occurred in a different sequence. I did not think "argues" was incorrect. In the stimulus the anthropologist says that one assertion is unwarranted, and that another explanation might be plausible. Is this not an argument? Thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi lsat-student,

Answer choice (E) is very very close, so let's take a look at it. The author of our stimulus suggests another possible explanation for the fact that useful animals are also taboo. But the author doesn't argue that it is the correct explanation, but just an explanation that should be considered. There's no evidence that he gives for picking one over the other. Rather, he questions the traditional explanation by providing a possible alternative. Typically for something to be an argument, the author would need to give some support. In this case, he's not even willing to say that his alternative possibility is likely correct, just that it might be. There's no support or reasoning given to support his alternative.

Hope that helps
Rachael

[hope]

I chose D and still do not understand how it cannot be correct. I read the stimulus to be saying that one view is incompatible with the other. One is for rituals and the other one is for a practical use. Need help in understanding why these two views are compatible. Thank you.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Hope! The issue with Answer Choice (D) is similar to the one that Rachael pointed out above with Answer Choice (E): the anthropologist never argues in favor of any explanation. It's true that the anthropologist brings up a point that is "incompatible with" the researchers' explanation that the taboos originated solely for practical reasons. But at no point does he/she seem to say, "Here's what the real explanation is". The anthropologist does say, "taboos against eating certain animals might instead have arisen for symbolic, ritualistic reasons", but this is suggested as a possibility merely to undermine the explanation of the researchers; he/she never argues in favor of that "ritualistic" possibility or provides any support for it. To sum up: the anthropologist attacks one explanation, but never "argues in support of" any another explanation like Answer Choice (D) says. Hope that helps!

[cd1010]

Could someone clarify what "reject the reasoning" would entail? From the explanations above, it doesn't just mean that there is a gap between the premises and the conclusion. What would it look like, then? Why does positing an alternative hypothesis not count as "rejecting the reasoning"?

I crossed out C because of the phrase "more plausible", but I just want to make sure I understand the phrase "reject the reasoning" when it is used in other answer choices. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Rejecting someone's reasoning means saying that they are wrong, that they have made a flaw in their argument, that their premises do not support their conclusion. That almost happens here, but it's a little softer than that, because the author isn't saying the hypothesis is wrong, but only that it could be wrong.

And even if we were to interpret "that conclusion is unwarranted" as a total rejection of the reasoning, it's still not based on a more plausible alternative. It's just based on the fact that another alternative is plausible, maybe equally so. Good job spotting that key issue in that answer choice, cd1010!