#18 - There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument in this stimulus indicates that there is evidence that our cave-dwelling ancestors
polished their fl int tools to a higher degree than necessary for hunting purposes. The author then
draws the fl awed conclusion that the cause of this extra polishing must have been an aesthetic
sensibility on the part of early humans. The implied conclusion is:

Cause Effect

Aesthetic sense Many fl ints polished to a high degree

The problem is that early humans could have used the fl ints for activities other than hunting, so there
are explanations for the polishing aside from the notion that cavemen liked the way the fl ints looked.

You are asked to weaken the argument, and since this is a causal stimulus, you should look for one of
the fi ve classic ways to weaken a causal argument:

1. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect.

2. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur.

3. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur.

4. Show that the stated relationship is reversed.

5. Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement.

Answer choice (A): This choice seems attractive, but it actually has no effect on the argument. First,
remember that the test makers rarely attack an argument by directly undermining a premise, so you
should be suspicious of any answer choice that appears to do just that. Make sure to read carefully in
order to avoid a trap. In this case, the trap resides in the use of many in the stimulus and most in this
answer.

Most simply means more than half, so this choice leaves open the possibility that just less than
half of the fl ints are highly polished. Yet, imagine that there were one million fl ints used by our
cave-dwelling ancestors. Under this scenario, just less than half a million could be highly polished,
and that would certainly qualify as many. Consequently, even when this answer is taken as true, it
does not undermine or contradict the information in the argument (in other words, this answer is
consistent with the stimulus, and an answer that is consistent with the stimulus cannot be correct in a
Weaken question).

Answer choice (B): The cave-dweller’s seeming neglect of one form of artistic self-expression is
not relevant to the possibility that the high polishing of tools was a form of aesthetic expression.
You may have found this response attractive, but the absence of cave paintings speaks no more
to the general aesthetic sensibilities of early humans than does the absence of writing or musical
expression. And, of course, it may be that early humans used different caves for their painting than
for their fl int polishing.

Answer choice (C): Some test takers assume that the use of fl ints in a religious ceremony shows
an alternate cause for the polishing of the fl ints. However, the answer choice specifi cally states that
the fl ints were used for display in the ceremonies, and so this answer choice could actually serve to
strengthen the conclusion by showing that cave-dwellers had an aesthetic sense. In any event, there is
no proof of an alternate cause, so this choice must be eliminated.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the fl ints were used for chores besides
hunting, then there is a possible explanation for the polishing other than aesthetics. Therefore, this
answer choice weakens the argument by suggesting an alternate cause (or causes) for why the fl ints
were highly polished.

Answer choice (E): The fact that the benefi ts of an aesthetic sense are not fully understood is not
relevant to whether the aesthetic sense exists, so this choice is wrong.

[Rhei1Kel]

I am having a very difficult time understanding why D is the correct answer.

Here is how I went about this:
Premise: ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes.
Conclusion: Early humans possessed an aesthetic sense

When I saw that I was being asked to find the statement that most seriously weakens the argument, I immediately thought "so because they polish flints to a degree that isn't necessary, the reason they do it for aesthetic reasons, this would assume that they do not have any flints that are not polished to this high degree (how could they if they had aesthetic sense?)"

I chose (A) because it jumped right out to me. If someone argued this to me, my response to weaken it would definitely be (A). If most of the flints they used were not polished, they do not have this sense.

How does (D) most seriously weaken the argument? If someone said this in response to the argument, can't the response be something like "yeah and those flints were highly polished too, early humans did have an aesthetic sense."

My only guess is that it has something to do with hunting/chores etc...but I don't see the connection and if there is a connection I don't understand how (A) would not still weaken the argument.

Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, Rhei,

It's good that you're prephrasing and formulating answer choice theories before you hit the answer choices! Many students jump right to the answer choices and are thus misled. The only problem with your immediate thought would be your final assumption: not all of their flints need be polished for them to possess an aesthetic sense. The stimulus does say "many", after all.

D weakens the argument because the argument says that because the flints were more highly polished than would be used for hunting, they must have been used for aesthetic purposes. If D is true, that presents other possible explanations for the highly polished flints beyond aesthetic purposes, and so the argument is no longer conclusively true (though, significantly, not conclusively disproven either).

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[Wisconsin123]

Hi,

If (D) is correct on the basis of giving another reason why the flints would be "unnecessarily" polished... doesn't (C) do that as well? (C) provides another reason for why the flints surpassed the polishing necessary for hunting purposes.

The only reason I'm thinking (C) may be incorrect, is because it specifies "highly polished flints" instead of just the general flints from the stimulus? Am I correct on that?

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Wisconsin123,

Thanks for providing your reasoning here; it really helps us tailor the response to your specific question! Here, C does not provide another explanation, because C also would be polishing for an aesthetic (vs. practical) purpose; for display (i.e., looking at) in religious ceremonies. D is the only answer that gives an alternative practical, non-aesthetic reason for polishing.

[davidh]

I am stuck on D because why can't Flints being used for everyday chores equally be aesthetic?
I can use a "fly swatter" to hunt flies but at the same time still maintain aesthetic pleasure by having colorful decorations while using fly swatter to do chores like removing dust.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hey David,

Great question!

You are correct that even given the evidence presented in answer choice (D), it is still possible the flints could have some aesthetic value. In other words, even if people used these sharp flints for purposes other than hunting, they might have made them extra sharp for aesthetic reasons.

However, our job here is to weaken the argument. The author postulates that the reason why people make the flints extra sharp is because of aesthetics. If we wish to harm this rationale, we need at least to bring up the possibility that people might not have made the flints sharp for aesthetics. One way to accomplish this "hurt" goal is to suggest another reason for the purported effect here, to suggest another reason why people made the flints extra sharp.

Answer choice (D) stipulates that the flints were used for purposes other than hunting. By bringing in the fact that these flints had other purposes, we raise the possibility that the flints might have been made extra sharp for some other reason, like everyday chores.

While it remains possible that the people made them sharp for aesthetics, we have raised another possibility. Therefore, the argument is weaker.

We don't have to totally kill the argument, just make it worse. Does this make sense?

[Jameseticknor]

I was really stuck on why C was incorrect. Noting the "for display" in the answer was particularly informative. Though, I really don't like answers or questions with religious aspects in it because religion is so incredibly dynamic.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi James,

I can see where answer choice (C) might be tempting because it was describing another use for the flints. However, it was still describing an aesthetic use---display. You display things that are nice to look at. It would fall under the category of the causal relationship suggested in the stimulus, potentially strengthening it instead of weakening it.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[samwestov]

This question makes no sense to me at all. The explanations given above are also still confusing me.

You mention polishing as being "making the flints sharper", but I don't see how you got to this definition of "polish". When I hear the word polish, I think that means to make something brighter/smoother, not sharper. And I think most people would agree it doesn't mean to make something sharper.

If they had said sharpen, I would have given D much more consideration. It doesn't make sense to me how LSAC can just go about changing the definitions of words and expect us to just follow suit.