Q13

[polidoroalexandra]

Why not (C)?

[ohthatpatrick]

I would start by trying to come up with some sort of prephrase
(answer in my own words).

What principle underlied both arguments? What WERE both arguments?

What was the Conclusion and Support in Psg A, and in Psg B?

A:
CONC - music and language evolved together, though language was the focus, music the side effect.

SUPPORT - they share a neurological basis ... but music seems to have little adaptive value. Also, everyone can talk, but only some people can play music.

B:
CONC - the adaptive value of musical faculties relates to the emotional bonds between mothers and infants

SUPPORT - because hominid babies need to be born early, the bonding stage between mother and helpless infant is especially long, and moms and babies use musical faculties to bond.

Is there a common principle?

Common themes, maybe: music / adaptive value / neurological basis

(A) "must", way too strong.

(B) "All", way too strong.

(C) From Psg A, we know that a single neurological system underlies two difference capacities (music and language), but Psg B didn't deal with language. This answer perfectly sums up Psg A, but has nothing to do with B.

(D) Super strong ("neurological basis = the essence"). It's not clear how this would even relate to either passage.

(E) Psg B is definitely observing modern moms/infants and using that as support for inferences about the evolutionary origin/benefit of musical faculties.

Psg A uses some observations about modern day humans, such as that we are all decent music listeners but most aren't great performers. Meanwhile, we're all great at language. From this, the author gets to his conclusion that music and language evolved together, but language was more important.

This has super weak language:
"Modern human behavior can provide legit evidence of evolutionary origins."

You only need one example to prove that statement.

Hope this helps.