Q17 - Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools

[willaminic]

Hey,

Here is my thought process when it comes to this question. Ok, John is saying that scientisits' dated those woods to 130000 years, but it is not correct, because people migrated to America before 130000 years.

But smith is saying, Jones's evidence is not enough, and he seems to imply people bring those woods in their bag....

so dont they all agree scientisits' attribution of tools all not enough and wrong??

so i am confused why B is a correct answer? I chose E on this one. Thank you for your explanation.

[maryadkins]

We're asked to identify the point at issue.

John says that attributing the tools dated 13K years ago and found in South America to this certain group of people is wrong, because no tools dating BEFORE 13K years ago have been found on the path they would have had to take to migrate there.

Smith says that argument doesn't work because the tools dated 13K years ago that were found in South America were preserved by these rare "peat bogs," and that tools dropped in other kinds of soil (aha! peat bogs must be some kind of soil... thanks LSAT) would decompose.

So what is Smith saying? He's saying that maybe the reason tools weren't found pre-13K years ago along the path from Alaska to South America is because they were left in soil that didn't preserve them, and they decomposed. In other words, Smith is questioning the link between John's evidence--that no tools were found--and his conclusion--that the scientists are wrong. (B) provides this.

(A) is wrong because it's out of scope.
(C) is wrong because the issue is not the dating of the tools, it's attribution of them to a certain group of people.
(D) is wrong because the issue is not when they crossed--it's whether these tools can be attributed to them.
(E) is wrong because, like (C), the issue is not the dating of the tools, but who brought them.

[Mab6q]

WOW! This one has got me shaking my head .

Here's my understanding and reasoning for B and C, can I have some feedback please?

B. Jones would still disagree, obviously, based on the evidence he gives. He thinks the the tools did not belong so attribution is incorrect. It is Smith's position that makes this one tricky. If the answer choice had said "whether the attribution of tools by scientists IS correct", I believe C would be easy to eliminate because we don't know Smith's position on that. His point is simply about the evidence is inconclusive: he is showing that the peat bogs could have 13,000 years old. But, because of the could in the answer choice, he believes attribution to the people is possible as well.

C. This is tricky, but I believe it is just as correct as B. Jones would have to disagree with the scientist. He would say no, it can't be correct because they were found in South America and no such tools have been found before. If we don't hold this to be true, we can't hold his other statement about attribution to be true. Now, for Smith, it gets tricky. But, the answer choice presents us with the could, just like B. Of course it could be true, because as he implies, such tools were used even though they are not found; this one was in a peat bog so it got lucky. So, it is very possible that the tools are 13,000 years old.

Any thoughts???

[maryadkins]

B. Jones would still disagree, obviously, based on the evidence he gives. He thinks the the tools did not belong so attribution is incorrect. It is Smith's position that makes this one tricky. If the answer choice had said "whether the attribution of tools by scientists IS correct", I believe C would be easy to eliminate because we don't know Smith's position on that. His point is simply about the evidence is inconclusive: he is showing that the peat bogs could have 13,000 years old. But, because of the could in the answer choice, he believes attribution to the people is possible as well.

I think you mean "B" would be easy to eliminate. If it said "is" correct then we wouldn't know Smith's opinion, that is right. Since it says "could," we do know Smith's opinion.

C. This is tricky, but I believe it is just as correct as B. Jones would have to disagree with the scientist. He would say no, it can't be correct because they were found in South America and no such tools have been found before. If we don't hold this to be true, we can't hold his other statement about attribution to be true. Now, for Smith, it gets tricky. But, the answer choice presents us with the could, just like B. Of course it could be true, because as he implies, such tools were used even though they are not found; this one was in a peat bog so it got lucky. So, it is very possible that the tools are 13,000 years old.

Not sure you read my explanation above, but the dating of the tools isn't the issue. Jones doesn't dispute the dating of the tools. It's the attribution of the tools to a certain people that is the issue.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Jones: Scientist's attribution of wooden tools is incorrect.
Why? In order for reach SA the people to which the tools have been attributed would have needed to have begun migration well before 13000 years, however, no such tools dating to that particular juncture have been found between SA and Alaska.

Smith: Your evidence is inconclusive
Why? The tools where found in peat bogs which are rare in SA and the tools could have decomposed after a few years.

Point at issue: Whether the Scientist's attribution could be correct given Jone's evidence. Smith says yes since his evidence overlooks the fact that the tools could have decomposed. Jones doesn't think so, he thinks his evidence perfectly substantiate his claim.

(A) Neither disputes this
(B) Bingo
(C) This is tempting, but the issue here is attribution not dating. The point of contention is whether Jone's reasoning is sufficient to substantiate the claim that the Scientist's attribution of the wooden tools is incorrect, Jones thinks so, Smith doesn't. Smith doesn't even talk about the date of the tools.
(D) Smith doesn't talk about this.
(E) Neither disputes/talks about this.