#19 - Anthropologist: It was formerly believed that

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi rneumann,

Close! I think you just got two of the terms mixed around; prehistoric humans are ancestors of contemporary humans, not the other way around. Otherwise, though, you've got it! Now the challenge is to trust your instincts when you think you've reasoned it through on your own.

[Bahar]

I got the point that I need to find an answer to show that she was intentionally did that to be guilty but I refute AC E when I was reasoning she didn't talk to experts that means that she didn't know. Means she was naive or just did a mistake , I didn't get it in a way that she intentionally did it and she was biased!!!
Why this interpretation is wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Bahar, I think you are looking in the wrong thread here. This question from June 2011 has to do with an assumption regarding the DNA of humans and Neanderthals. There's nothing about guilt or mistakes here. Please take a look at which test and section your question is in, and find the thread that matches. When you do, you can check the explanation in the correct thread and, if that isn't satisfactory, re-post your question there. Thanks!

[frk215]

Hello! I would like to make sure my reasoning for why c, when negated, would hurt the argument.

So my negated version of c is just: The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans.

We know that the prehistoric homo sapiens were ancestors of contemporary humans. If we believe that these homo sapiens were more similar to that of neanderthals than modern humans (in terms of DNA) and we know that the homo sapiens were definitely related to humans, then the DNA similarity doesn't mean anything.

This would then hurt the argument because the driving force behind the conclusion is the premise that the neanderthal dna is different (i.e. if the DNA is different, neanderthals weren't ancestors). Our negated assumption would directly attack this driving force.

How'd I do?

[katehos]

Hi frk215,

Nailed it! Great job employing the Assumption Negation Technique.

Best,
Kate