#19 - Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species

[attorneyatpaw]

I've taken this practice test several months apart and selected (A) BOTH times. I still don't understand why answer choice (A) doesn't weaken the argument in the stimulus. Doesn't (A) open up the possibility that they preserved meat using a different material? And the lichen could've been used for something else? Clearly there's something not clicking with me on this question so I'll write out my thinking process below:

Conclusion: Neanderthals probably preserved meat by smoking it:
Premise 1: burnt lichen/grass found in many Neanderthal fireplaces
Premise 2: lichen/grass produces smoke but inferior to wood fire for producing heat/light

I think part of my confusion might have to do with not being super clear about which part of the stimulus I should be critical of and which part I should just accept. For example, I felt like the "preserving meat" idea came out of nowhere. Should I just accept that Neanderthals definitely preserved meat? Or should I be critical of the fact that the author assumed that the mere presence of burnt lichen gave them the green light to think that Neanderthals preserved meat? During my initial reading, my immediate reaction was to think "how did the author get from burnt lichen to preserving meat? There could've been so many other reasons for the presence of burnt lichen such as for aromatics or some type of ceremonial ritual. Why, out of all the ways you could use smokey lichen, did the author automatically assume that it was used to preserve meat?

I thought that answer choice (A) weakened the argument because it introduced the existence of another material that could've been used to handle meat instead of the lichen.

What am I missing here? Thanks for your time!

[attorneyatpaw]

Hi shibascream!

Your reasoning is generally correct. You're right to point out that there's nothing establishing for sure that Neanderthals needed or wanted artificial sources of heat.

You're also right to note that (B) is "providing us with another purpose for the lichen/grass." Answer choice (B) provides us with an alternative explanation. Rather than the evidence indicating that Neanderthals preserved meats by smoking them, perhaps the evidence indicates that they used the lichens and grass for other purposes like heat and light. This doesn't require that they needed heat and light but rather just indicates that burning the lichens/grass could serve these alternative purposes. If it could, then this undercuts the conclusion that this evidence points to smoking as a means of preservation.

If it's the case that an answer choice such as (B) only needs to indicate that burning lichen *could* serve an alternative purpose, how definite does it need to be? For example, you were saying that answer choice (B) doesn't require that Neanderthals *needed* heat or light, but that (B) weakened the argument because it pointed out that the lichen *could* serve these alternative purposes. But if we don't know for sure that Neanderthals required plant sources for heat or light, I don't see how (B) would have any weakening ability at all. In the same vein, would you say that even if (B) had read as follows...

"In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to bake cookies were available 60,000 years ago."

...that this would still be the correct answer choice because even though we don't know that Neanderthals *needed* plant sources to bake cookies, the mere fact that it *could've* been a possibility is still enough to weaken the argument? I suppose Neanderthals could've had their own version of cookies, but I don't know for sure. But from my understanding, it seems like you're saying that even if I don't know for sure, and even if there's no indication anywhere in the answer choice itself or in the stimulus that Neanderthals baked cookies or required plant sources to bake them, that this answer would still weaken the argument because it is pointing out the *possibility* of an alternative purpose for the lichen.

With some LSAT questions, I feel like I get punished for assuming too much, while with others, I get punished for not assuming enough. Any tips to figure out this balance would be greatly appreciated!

[Adam Tyson]

Here's my view of answer B, attorneyatpaw:

The argument is that this stuff is really smoky and not good for heat or light, so they must have been intentionally using it for the smoke. Smoking meat makes sense, so that's probably what they used it for.

Answer B basically says that they had no other choice for making fires. It wasn't an intentional choice to make smoke, it was just the only available fuel for whatever they wanted to do. Heat, light, cookies, whatever. And it's not much of a leap to think that the very first people to intentionally make fire probably wanted heat and light, and that other uses, like cooking, came later, is it? So now there's no reason to think they chose it for the special quality of making smoke.

Meanwhile, answer A does the exact opposite. You're telling me these people had TWO kinds of fireplaces, right near each other, like a dude with a charcoal grill AND a Big Green Egg smoker on his back deck? That certainly supports the idea that they were specializing their fire-related activities. One fireplace for staying warm, and another for making smoke, supports the idea that they were intentionally making smoke, not just because it was their only option. And if they were intentionally making smoke in these special fireplaces, while getting their heat elsewhere, that lends at least some credence to the claim that they were smoking meat to preserve it.

I don't see this as requiring any special assumptions. One answer is "that's all they had to burn, so there's nothing special about it," while the other is "they had other stuff to burn, so this is kind of special."