Q18 - Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools

[b91302310]

I was wondering why answer (E) is better than (C)
?

Could anyone explain?

Thanks

[aileenann]

(C) would be the answer if Smith said that Jones's evidence was plain wrong - i.e. saying that Jones was lying or just had not found what he had found.

But that's not what Smith said. Rather he says that the evidence is inconclusive. This seems to mean that he accepts the evidence but he disputes whatever process...or assumptions...Jones is using to draw a conclusion from that evidence.

Do you see what is implicit in Jones's argument (i.e. what is assumed, as in (E)) that Smith contests?

[b91302310]

Yeah, I could see that Jones assumes that wooden tools did not exist if not found. At the first glance, I think (E) is fine. However, I thought (C) is so general that could not be wrong. I think I should carefully deal with the wording when two seemingly possible answers occur.

Thanks !

[Mab6q]

Out of curiosity, does Smith challenge the assumption that if they had used such tools, they would lasted long enough to have been found? It seems that Smith rejects that assumption by showing that they could not have been found because usually they were not in peat bogs.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Exactly it, Mab6q!

If we wanted to get technical, the assumption could be characterized as being slightly broader than your version (but would still include your version!): Jones assumes that if such tools were used, they would have been found by now.

Other ways Smith could have challenged this generalized assumption would have been to show that it's possible someone else removed/destroyed the tools, if they existed, or perhaps to show that the tools, if they existed, would be buried too deeply for us to notice them - a million things!

I know you were just asking for curiosity's sake, and to deepen your general understanding of how arguments work, but I feel compelled to point out to any other students reading that it is not at all necessary to figure out what assumptions Jones is making, or exactly how Smith is challenging them. To get through this question as efficiently as possible, all that matters is that Smith is suggesting that Jones's premises may be correct, and yet his conclusion may not follow - that's the very definition of challenging an assumption!

It's interesting stuff in the after-the-fact analysis, for general understanding, but not relevant to actually attacking this question in real time. Keep up the great work Mab6q!