#17 - Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America

[sunj289]

Hi,

I'm not sure if I understood this problem correctly. But I'm having a difficult time understanding/distinguishing between the answer choices B and C.

Perhaps I did not understand the stimulus correctly, but if someone could kindly explain this problem for me I would greatly appreciate any help!

Thanks.

[Ron Gore]

Thanks for your question, sunj289.

This question is of the Point At Issue type, a First (Prove) Family question. Your task here is to select the answer choice that presents a statement concerning which the two speakers would disagree

Jones, the first speaker, concludes that the attribution made by "scientists" of prehistoric wooden tools found in South America to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska can't be correct. His premises for this conclusion are: 1) the tools have been dated to 13,000 years ago; 2) to get so far south, the peoples must have been migrating south well before 13,000 years ago; and 3) no similar wooden tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found between Alaska and South America (i.e., the route the migrating peoples would have taken).

In essence, Jones says the tools found in South America can't have belonged to peoples who migrated there from Siberia through Alaska and southward through what is now North America, because we would have found evidence of similar wooden tools along their migration path, almost as if they were dropping archeological breadcrumbs for the scientists to track. Since their migration apparently would have taken a long period of time, and since the peoples made it to South America by 13,000 years ago, Jones believes that we would have found evidence of similar tools along the migration path earlier than 13,000 years ago, left behind during their long journey.

Smith disagrees with Jones' conclusion that the attribution of the tools to the people described above cannot be correct. Smith bases his disagreement on the fact that the tools found in South America were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas, but which also have the ability to preserve wooden artifacts. In areas without such peat bogs, you would be unable to find wooden tools from so long ago.

To answer this question, you must look for an answer choice that contains something (fact/opinion) that was discussed by both speakers, and concerning which the two speakers would disagree.

Here, both speakers talk about whether the scientist's attribution of the tools to the migrating peoples could be correct in light of the fact that no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America.

Jones would say no, it's not possible. Smith would say it is possible, because natural processes would have decomposed any tools left along the migration path within only a few years, unless they were in a peat bog or some similarly preserving environment.

For that reason, answer (B) is correct.

You also mentioned answer (C). For (C) to be correct, Smith and Jones would have to disagree over whether the dating of the wooden tools by the scientists is accurate. However, neither Smith nor Jones raises the dating of the tools as an issue. In fact, Jones relies on the dating to come to his conclusion. Smith does not raise the issue of dating, and so we have no basis to say whether he would agree or disagree with the accuracy of the dating.

Hope all that helps.

Ron

[sunj289]

Thank you so much for the extensive explanation!

[Ron Gore]

You're very welcome! Glad to help.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Hello,

Why B, and not C?

B "whether the scientists' attribution ['to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska'] of tools could be correct in light of Jones's evidence (no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America)"

C "whether the dating of the wooden tools by the scientists could be correct"

I don't see the problem with C, Smith is like peat could be a reason tools aren't found and Jones is like other tools aren't found.

Isn't the argument more about finding tools or not, and not as much about attribution to a people?

Is B more correct because of the part that says, "in light of Jones's evidence" (the part that the scientists and Smith disagree with)?

Is C incorrect because Smith doesn't necessarily disagree with that?

Is E incorrect because Jones doesn't argue over Smith's evidence?

Thank you very much.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi kristinajohnson!

Regarding answer choice (B), Jones notes that "scientists attribute these tools [found in South America and dated to 13,000 years ago] to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska." Jones finds this implausible and presents evidence--namely, no other such tools have been found between Alaska and South America. So if we ask whether Jones would agree with (B), the answer is no. However, Smith suggests Jones's evidence is inconclusive--i.e., the scientists may be correct after all. If we ask whether Smith would agree with (B), the answer is yes. Since we have a yes for one of them and a no for the other, that confirms that (B) is a point of issue between them.

Regarding answer choice (C), on my reading it's not clear what either of them would think about that answer. Finally, (E) seems to differ in a notable way from (B) in that (B) talks about what "could" be correct in light of Jones's evidence, whereas (E) speaks to what that evidence "entails." It's the weaker sense of "could" be correct that comes across when Smith points out that Jones's evidence is inconclusive.