Q14 - Scientist: A controversy in paleontology

[noah]

14. (B)
Question type: Weaken the Conclusion
The conclusion of this argument is that cavemen stood up before they developed sophisticated tools. Why? Because making those tools requires free use of your hands, and standing upright makes this possible.

Seems like a good argument, but let's think how we might debate it. Couldn't those cavemen have gotten their hands free some other way? Maybe while sitting?

A-ha! Standing upright is a sufficient condition for having free use of your hands, but it's not necessary. The argument is having you think that it goes Soph. Tools --> Free hands --> Standing upright.

But, it's just: Soph. Tools --> Free hands & Standing upright --> Free hands

So, with that in mind, let's look at the answers:

(A) Animals? Out of scope! And, who's talking about basic tools? We're talking about the fancy stuff!

(B) looks good - it's an example of people that didn't stand upright having tools. It emphasizes that standing upright is not necessary. With (B) in place, what does tool use have to do with standing?

It might have given you pause that this answer doesn't say that these stooped cave people developed the tools themselves. Indeed, we have to assume that the fact that the tools belonged to these people means they developed them - but that is a small assumption, especially since the assumptions you'd have to make in the other direction are pretty large (i.e. that these stoopers somehow got their hands on tools made by upright cave people who were around at the same time).

(C) is not helpful. First of all how many is "many"? And, so what if a bunch of upright-standing cavemen didn't have sophisticated tools? Maybe they were not the smartest of cavemen. Maybe others still did.

(D) is shifting the discussion to dexterity. The argument is focused on whether these cavemen has free use of their hands. For all we know, the cavemen who didn't have free use of their hands were very dexterous, but because of that dang limited use of their hands, they couldn't make those fancy tools.

(E) is similar to (D) in that it's shifting the conversation to the use of tools. We're interested in who could develop tools.

edited for clarity!

[da.chou]

A is also wrong because it shifts "advanced/sophisticated" tools to "basic" tools. I think.

[noah]

A is also wrong because it shifts "advanced/sophisticated" tools to "basic" tools. I think.

Nice catch!

[mrudula_2005]

I'm still a little lost as to why D is so wrong - I think it actually comes down to my understanding of the word dexterity - does that just mean nimbleness and agility and have no direct connection to being able to use hands freely? If D read "Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more of an ability to freely use their hands than did those who did not stand upright" that could be a credited weakener, right? Since it directly attacks the Scientist's reasoning...?

thanks!

[cyruswhittaker]

Is C also wrong because it hinges on a condition that was only mentioned as a necessary condition?

The argument says that toolmaking requires the free use of hands, which standing upright makes possible.

However, that doesn't mean the argument is saying that standing upright would result in actually making sophisticated tools (a causal conclusion that C seems would actually weaken).

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm still a little lost as to why D is so wrong - I think it actually comes down to my understanding of the word dexterity - does that just mean nimbleness and agility and have no direct connection to being able to use hands freely? If D read "Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more of an ability to freely use their hands than did those who did not stand upright" that could be a credited weakener, right? Since it directly attacks the Scientist's reasoning...?

thanks!

I think the reason D is wrong is because is presents a condition (dexterity) that isn't necessary for the conclusion to hold. I think that assuming dexterity to imply more than it is would be an unwarranted assumption. So, taking it for what it actually means, the scientist could just reply that it due to some other reason caused by standing upright, maybe something totally different from dexterity.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Noah,
I picked (B) for this one, but while reviewing my answers (even the ones that I got correct) -- I can't seem to wrap my head around why (B) is really correct. I might be way over-thinking this, but after reading (B), I thought "well.. just because they were discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who didn't stand upstraight doesn't mean that they were the ones who developed it.. maybe the humans who weren't able to stand upright developed those.." do you sort of see where I am going with this?

[noah]

I saw that there were a bunch of follow-up questions and when I went back to read my explanation I found it to be frankly awful. So, I re-wrote it. I think it will clarify things.

Tell me if you're still confused about this.

[LSAT-Chang]

The edited post clearly shows why the 4 incorrect answer choices are INCORRECT. However... I'm still having a bit of trouble with (B). I just don't seem to get how just because it was "discovered", they were the ones who "developed" it. I feel like we would need to assume that if the tools were discovered among a group of people, then it is likely that they were the ones who developed it (in this case, the people who didn't stand upright). Or since the conclusion simply is that they "stood upright first", should I not consider about discover = develop issue? Just about stood upright first or didn't stand upright?? I mean since we always want to work from wrong to right, I can see how (B) is the best available answer, but would really want some clarification.... Thanks!!

[noah]

Good question!

I agree that there's some wiggle room with this answer - it's possible that while the artifacts belonged to those folks they didn't develop those tools themselves but either found them, stole them, or were gifted them. It's a stretch. Plus, we'd also have to assume that this group of not-upright people were around at the same time as some upright people were (and that the tools of those upright people somehow made it over to the stooped ones). This is a lot of stretching! And, while there isn't really a lot of support for what I'm about to say, the argument seems to treat our ancestors as a large group, evolving as one.

If the answer had said something like "tools were found in the same area as that where stooped ancestors were found" then I'd be seriously suspicious. But with "belonging" there, it's a much stronger answer.

That get it?

[LSAT-Chang]

Yes!! I definitely over-thought this, but I also have to admit that there is a lot of wiggle room for this answer. I read the answer choice again, and I think the word "belonging" is really crucial here since it clearly tells us that these hunting weapons weren't just discovered somewhere around where these people stay, but rather among the ones that BELONGED to the prehistoric human ancestors who didn't stand upright -- but then again, I totally agree with you in that they could have stole it from somewhere so now it just "belongs" to them, but it would be a bit of stretch, and since this isn't a necessary assumption question, I think I should be satisfied with answer choice (B) since it still does "question" the author's conclusion that our ancestors who developed these SURELY stood upright first.

[noah]

I feel our understanding of this question has evolved.

[geverett]

Hey Noah,
In the stimulus it says that standing upright makes toolmaking possible. In your initial post you said it was sufficient and then the author tries to conclude from this that it is necessary. I'm not sure though that just b/c standing upright makes toolmaking possible that you can then conclude that it is sufficient. Thoughts?

[noah]

So, in essence you're saying that making something possible doesn't lead to it happening. As in, having a key makes driving a car possible but doesn't mean you will actually drive. But, if another problem could rise up (like not having gas), does having a key actually make driving a car possible? Then we're really saying that having a key is one of the necessary conditions. I'll have to ponder that. We may be dealing with a subtle issue of language. If I say "if you get the key, it'll be possible for you to drive the car" and you have the key, we would usually say that you can now drive the car. So, while I may not actually drive the car, I can. And, I think we're aiming for having the ability to do it, not the actual doing of it.

I'm thinking that in this argument, standing upright allows free use of hands - we could never say for sure that those cave people will definitely use their hands, but isn't it enough to say that it's now been made possible?

Either way, the issue with the argument remains the same - if standing upright is one way to make it possible, it still isn't necessary.

Good close reading and question!

[t_wm]

(E) is very tempting to me, because it also shows that standing upright is not necessary.
Maybe the "users" is too vague to be sure they are prehistoric human ancestors.
Will (E) be correct if we replace "users" with "developers"? or there are other problems in (E)?

Thanks in advance.

[d.andrew.chen]

(E) was the most tempting wrong answer to me. It's wrong because just because the tools did not require their users to stand upright does NOT mean that the users didn't stand upright while using them. It doesn't necessarily show advanced tools used w/out standing upright, like (B) does.

My issue with (B) was the advanced hunting weapons part. Is a weapon technically a tool? I ended up picking it with that reservation. Perhaps I'm overanalyzing this badly haha.

[jamiejames]

The reason I didn't choose B (I was down to B and D) was because of the shift from "tools" in the stim, to "weapons" in the answer choice. In the crunch, I, for some reason, viewed the jump from "tools" to "weapons" in the same way I viewed the jump from "free hands" to "dexterity." Is there any advice you could give me when having to make this kind of jump, but knowing when the jump is within the confines of getting the answer right?

thank you very much in advance.

[timmydoeslsat]

The reason I didn't choose B (I was down to B and D) was because of the shift from "tools" in the stim, to "weapons" in the answer choice. In the crunch, I, for some reason, viewed the jump from "tools" to "weapons" in the same way I viewed the jump from "free hands" to "dexterity." Is there any advice you could give me when having to make this kind of jump, but knowing when the jump is within the confines of getting the answer right?

thank you very much in advance.

It is very good to notice the jumps. As Noah said, there are times when you have to accept the jumps, as to choose any other answer requires way more jumps.

In the case of D, it does not weaken the idea that standing upright happened before they made the advanced tools. This answer choice is telling me that the group that stood up first did not have more dexterity than the group that did not stand up.

This is not harming his reasoning. His argument is that free use of hands is necessary for advanced toolmaking.

While standing upright is one way to get to free hands, it is not the only way, as Noah pointed out.

This is where we want to weaken the argument. That you can have advanced toolmaking without standing upright.

Even if D were true with the dexterity issue, you would not have to have more dexterity for advanced toolmaking. Standing upright will allow you to have free hands. The relative amount of dexterity is not at issue. Perhaps both groups had really high amounts of dexterity.

[ttunden]

I picked E and I now understand why it is wrong, but what about B?

During blind review, I stated that B was wrong because, as stated by a user above, it makes a jump from sophisticated tools in the stimulus to advanced hunting weapons.

Moreover, when I was deciding between B and E, I didn't like how B was so ambiguous. What if perhaps the weapons found among the artifacts was stolen by the ancestors from other tribes of human ancestors that WERE able to stand upright. Or what if they were scavengers and just picked up the weapons from a deserted camp. I guess that is why I leaned toward E. I had the same understanding as the OP in terms of the gap and way to weaken. I just didn't catch that word "users" in E. I equivocated it with development/developers.

[maryadkins]

Your thinking on all of this is correct.

Basically there is a possible problem with B because B doesn't clear it up. But with E, it's not even a POSSIBLE problem; it's an actual, explicit problem. So E rules itself out while B doesn't, if you want to think about it that way. B is therefore the closest weakener.