Self-study
Anthropologist: In an experiment, two groups of undergraduates were taught how to create one of the types of stone tools that the Neanderthals made in prehistoric times. One group was taught using both demonstrations and elaborate verbal explanations, whereas the other group learned by silent example alone. The two groups showed a significant difference neither in the speed with which they acquired the toolmaking skills nor in the level of proficiency they reached. This shows that Neanderthals could just as well have created their sophisticated tools even if they had no language.
10.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the anthropologist's argument?
a
Apart from the sophistication of their stone tools, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that Neanderthals possessed some form of language.
The anthropologist isn't claiming that Neanderthals definitely did or did not have language. The anthropologist is just saying that language was not necessary to create the tools the Neanderthals made. Knowing that the Neanderthals probably did have language doesn't weaken the claim that they could have made their tools even without language.
b
The students who were taught with verbal explanations were allowed to discuss the toolmaking techniques among themselves, whereas the students who learned by silent example were not.
This doesn't weaken the argument. This answer choice just fleshes out the premises to tell us that the students taught by silent example had no verbal communication of any sort, not just from the instructor but also amongst themselves, and still reached the same level of tool-making proficiency as the verbal group. This leaves the conclusion as supported as it was before.
c
The tools that the undergraduates were taught to make were much simpler and easier to make than most types of tools created by Neanderthals.
This weakens the argument. While the tools the undergraduates made were simple enough to be made without language, the majority of tools Neanderthals made were much more sophisticated. By introducing an important difference between the tool the undergraduates made and the majority of Neanderthal tools, this answer choice destroys the analogy implied in the stimulus, making the experiment with the undergraduates irrelevant as a comparison to Neanderthals making tools in general. Thus, the experiment tells us nothing about whether or not Neanderthals could have made their tools without language, and the author's conclusion is significantly weakened.
d
The instructor who taught the group of students who learned by silent example alone was much less proficient at making the stone tools than was the instructor who taught the other group of students.
If anything, this might slightly strengthen the conclusion. If the silent group reached the same level of tool-making proficiency despite no verbal communication and despite having a subpar instructor, this might make it even more likely that language isn't needed to make these kinds of tools.
e
The tools created by Neanderthals were much less sophisticated than the tools created by anatomically modern humans who almost certainly possessed language and lived at the same time as the Neanderthals.
Irrelevant. It's possible that these other hominids did need language to create their more sophisticated tools. But we just want to know whether the Neanderthals needed language to create theirs.