#10 - Anthropologist: In an experiment, two groups of

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[maximbasu]

Hi,
I chose D while the correct answer is C.

The stimulus states:
1. 2 groups were taught how to create tools
2. Group 1 was taught by verbal explanations only + Group 2 was taught by silent example only
3. Result: got same results from both groups
4. Conclusion: Neanderthals didn't need language to create tools

I reasoned that D is correct because if the less proficient instructor taught the silent example group, then the study didn't have an equal playing field--obviously the results would be skewed because one instructor was a better instructor than the other and you can't conclude about language because an alternative factor messed up the study.

Is D wrong because I can't assume anything regarding the proficiency of the verbal group instructor?

Is C correct because if the groups were taught with simple tools that did not require advanced proficiency (in which case, D doesn't matter) that Neanderthals did not use, then the study was badly done because it didn't reflect the context of Neanderthals properly?

[Jon Denning]

Hi MB - thanks for posting!

Your analysis of the stimulus seems to be spot on: two groups were taught to create "one of the types of stone tools" made by Neanderthals, and the two groups showed the same proficiency whether they learned through observation alone, or observation and language, which the author uses to conclude that language wasn't necessary for the Neanderthals to build "their sophisticated tools."

Perhaps my quotes above help make a crucial distinction clear.

Language may not have mattered for the tools the students were making, but (C) tells us that the student tools were much simpler and easier to make than most types made by Neanderthals. Meaning? Language may have been important after all when it comes to making more sophisticated tools. Put another way: the study here was flawed because the tools created weren't reflective of Neanderthal tools, and thus the conclusion cannot be known.

(D), if anything, strengthens: remember, the expectation is that students learning from the silent group should have been worse, but weren't, and then on top of that we're told in (D) that the silent group also had a worse instructor! And yet they still learned equally well. This doesn't greatly affect the language idea of course, so it's more irrelevant than helpful, but it does seem to suggest perhaps that the skills can be learned regardless of verbal instruction AND even instructor incompetence. Regardless, it certainly doesn't weaken by showing that language might matter.

[cecilia]

Jon - Thanks for the explanation. It very much helped and I understand why the correct answer is the correct answer. Just one nagging issue with the use of the "flawed study" in this argument....

I found (C) initially attractive but then eliminated it, mistakenly thinking that since it was challenging the study's usefulness, it was therefore challenging the premise -something I thought we were not supposed to do for lsat arguments. Can you help clarify my muddled thinking on this?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Cecilia,

Good point! Answer (C) doesn't challenge any of the argument's premises. Be careful--premises, in the LSAT prep world, are explicit statements. (C) doesn't challenge the fact that "undergraduates were taught how to create one of the types of stone tools that the Neanderthals made." (C) only says that this type's simplicity makes it unrepresentative of Neanderthal tools.

[cecilia]

Thanks Claire!!!!

[kells__w]

Hi,
can someone explain why C is a better answer than E?
Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E actually looks like a decent Strengthen answer, kells__w. If the Neanderthals were creating tools much simpler than those created by language-using humans, that might mean that they themselves could have been simpler, including that they might not have the use of language! Even if we see that answer as neutral, having no effect, it still doesn't suggest that they actually may have needed language to make their tools.

Answer C weakens by attacking the usefulness of the study. If the tools the students made were not as sophisticated as some tools made by Neanderthals, then we really cannot use the study to draw any conclusions about whether language was required in order for them to make those other tools.

[landphil]

Can someone explain why A is incorrect? Wouldn't Neanderthals having "some form of language" weaken the entire argument that they did not need language?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi landphil,

You'll want to focus on the conclusion of the anthropologists. Was their conclusion about the development of language generally by Neanderthals? The conclusion drawn by the anthropologists is more specific. Based on the results of the experiment, the conclusion is that the Neanderthals would have been able to make the tools without language. That doesn't mean that they didn't have language. It means that the tools discovered would not have required language to make.

Answer choice (A) does not impact that conclusion. It would impact the likelihood that Neanderthals were able to use language, but not the likelihood that the tools themselves would have required language to make. It's weakening a different conclusion, so it's incorrect.

It can be tricky with these questions because you really have to focus on the specific conclusion of the argument. They give you evidence to try to push you toward a certain question. Did the Neanderthals have language? But the conclusion they draw isn't about if they did or did not. It's about if the evidence about toolmaking is enough to prove if the Neanderthals needed language to make their tools.

Hope that helps!