Self-study
Anthropologist: Every human culture has taboos against eating certain animals. ████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that taboos against eating certain animals may not have arisen for practical reasons, like the value of animal labor. This challenges some researchers’ view that the taboos must have had a practical basis. His reasoning is that it’s possible the taboos against eating animals arose first, and people only realized afterwards that they could use the animals for labor.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The anthropologist challenges some researchers’ hypothesis by offering an alternative that accounts for the same facts. He doesn’t claim their hypothesis is false, only that it isn’t necessarily true.
23.
In the argument, the anthropologist
a
calls an explanation ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The phenomenon is taboos against eating animals, and the explanation is the practical value of animals, e.g. for labor. The anthropologist calls it into question by suggesting that the taboos could have arisen first, and then were followed by the practical usage of animals.
b
establishes that an ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████████
The anthropologist doesn’t argue that the explanation is false, only that it could be false.
c
rejects the reasoning ████ ██ ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████
The anthropologist doesn’t say that the other hypothesis is more plausible, only that it’s also plausible.
d
argues in support ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████████ ████ █ █████ ███████████
The anthropologist argues that the evidence could support an alternative explanation, not that it’s incompatible with the original explanation. His argument is that two different hypotheses are consistent with the same set of facts.
e
describes a hypothesis █████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ████████
The anthropologist doesn’t argue that the events did occur in a different sequence, only that they could have occurred in a different sequence. Like (C) and (B), this is overstating the anthropologist’s belief.