Self-study
Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. ████████ ██████████ █████████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████
██████ ████ ████████ ██ █████████████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ████ █ ███ ██████
Jones' Argument
Jones concludes that 13,000-year-old wooden tools found in South America cannot be attributed to peoples whose ancestors first crossed from northern Europe into Alaska. Why not? Because to get as far as South America, those peoples would have to migrate south well before 13,000 years ago. And no one has found wooden tools older than 13,000 years along the way from Alaska to South America. Jones assumes that if these wooden tools were correctly attributed, even older wooden tools would have been found on the way from Alaska.
Smith's Argument
In response, Smith concludes that Jones' evidence is inconclusive. Smith isn't saying Jones is necessarily wrong, just that Jones' evidence doesn't truly support Jones' conclusion. And why not? Because wooden tools can be preserved in peat bogs, but in other soils usually decompose pretty fast. The tools in question were found in peat bogs, but peat bogs are rare in the Americas. Smith is showing that even if older wooden tools had existed further north, they probably wouldn't have survived.
Objective: Identify a Disagreement
So where do Jones and Smith disagree? Well, we can be clear on where they don't disagree: they both accept (or at least don't dispute) the factual evidence about ancient wooden tools, the peoples who migrated from Alaska to South America, and the rarity of peat bogs. Their only disagreement is on the interpretation of the evidence. Jones interprets the absence of older tools to mean that scientists' attribution is wrong; Smith thinks the evidence is inconclusive, and the scientists could be right.
18.
Smith responds to Jones by
a
citing several studies ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████
Smith doesn't cite any studies, so we can eliminate (A) right away.
b
accusing Jones of ██████████ ███ █████████████ ████████
Smith takes no issue with how Jones represents the scientists. (B) is inaccurate, so we can eliminate it immediately.
c
disputing the accuracy ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ██ █████
Jones' supporting evidence is that no wooden tools older than 13,000 years have been found between Alaska and South America. Smith doesn't dispute that this is accurate. Smith only offers another explanation for why this might be the case: that even if such tools existed, they likely decomposed.
The word that makes (C) incorrect is "accuracy." If (C) said "disputing the strength of Jones' evidence" then it could be correct. But even one word in (C) being inaccurate is enough to make it a wrong answer.
d
showing that Jones’s ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████████
Smith says that Jones' evidence is inconclusive, which means a definite conclusion can't be drawn from it. This is distinct from saying that the opposite position (that the scientists are definitely correct) is true. Smith doesn't deny Jones' conclusion, just questions the strength of Jones' support for it.
e
challenging an implicit ██████████ ██ █████████ ████████
Smith challenges the interpretation of Jones' evidence—and another way to frame that is that Smith challenges an assumption. Jones takes the absence of wooden tools older than 13,000 years between Alaska and South America to mean that such tools never existed—Jones assumes this is what the evidence means. Smith tells us Jones' assumption may well be incorrect.
Although (E) may not come at Smith's argument from the exact angle we expected, it still accurately describes Smith's method of reasoning without making any incorrect claims.