Self-study
Patterson: Support Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic are the earliest evidence for music. ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ███████
██████ ███ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████████ █████████ ██████ █████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ██ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Garza disputes Patterson’s conclusion that music likely first arose in the Upper Paleolithic era. Patterson’s reasoning is that bone flutes from this period are the earliest evidence of music. In response, Garza points out that bone, which preserves well, is unusually prevalent in Upper Paleolithic artifacts. Earlier instruments made from less durable materials, like wood, would be less likely to survive.
She implies that music could have existed earlier, but, if so, evidence of it wouldn’t survive due to the perishable nature of the materials used. Thus, even though there are no surviving earlier musical artifacts, there could have been earlier music.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Garza argues that Patterson lacks enough evidence to reach his conclusion. Patterson relies on the set of all currently discovered ancient tools. But Garza says that, because some ancient tools may not have survived to the present, this sample isn’t definitive enough to support his conclusion.
Note that she isn’t saying that Patterson’s conclusion has to be false. It could be true, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to support it.
20.
Garza responds to Patterson by █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
arguing that the ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████
To reach his conclusion, Patterson relies on the set of all discovered ancient tools, which Garza argues is insufficient. She contends that pre-Upper Paleolithic musical instruments made out of non-bone materials might not have survived long enough to be discovered.
b
offering evidence to █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████ ████████
Garza doesn’t challenge the truth of Patterson’s premise (bone flutes are the earliest discovered musical instruments). She challenges its significance: even if true, it isn’t sufficient to reach his conclusion.
c
presenting a counterexample ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████████
Garza presents hypothetical reasons to doubt Patterson’s conclusion, not a specific counterexample. A counterexample would be e.g. an actual pre-paleolithic wooden flute.
d
presenting an argument █████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ██ █████████████ █████████
Garza provides direct reason to doubt Patterson’s reasoning; she doesn’t use an analogy.
e
using Patterson’s evidence ██ ████ █ ██████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████████ ████████
Garza’s reasoning isn’t based on Patterson’s evidence (Upper Paleolithic bone flutes). It’s based on new considerations (the perishability of non-bone materials) not present in Patterson’s argument.