Self-study
Anthropologist: Support During the last ice age, nomadic communities probably needed at least 15 or 20 members to survive, and they were generally not much larger than this. ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that ice-age nomads’ food mostly came from plants and small animals, not big-game hunting as many people believe. In support, the anthropologist says that ice-age nomad communities likely only had about 15 to 20 members, and that big-game hunting would have risked multiple community members’ lives. This supports the idea that ice-age nomads would generally avoid big-game hunting.
Identify Argument Part
The text indicated by the question stem is the position the argument seeks to counter. The common portrayal of ice-age nomads as big-game hunters is shown to be a misconception by the anthropologist’s argument.
6.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████
a
It is a ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement about ice-age nomads’ portrayal is not a premise, because it doesn’t support the argument’s conclusion. The claim that many people think ice-age nomads were big-game hunters gives us no reason to believe that nomads mostly got food from other sources.
b
It is a █████████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement that ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as big-game hunters is unrelated to the argument’s premises, and definitely doesn’t clarify them. The premises are about how ice-age nomads actually lived, not about their popular depiction.
c
It is an █████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████
Firstly, the argument doesn’t present an opposing theory, just a common misconception and an explanation of why it’s wrong—so this can’t be true. Secondly, the anthropologist doesn’t use this statement to make any kind of point; it’s not a premise of any kind.
d
It is the ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ █████████
The statement about common depictions of ice-age nomads isn’t the conclusion because nothing else in the argument supports it. The anthropologist’s conclusion, supported by factual premises, is that ice-age nomads mostly got their food from plants and small animals.
e
It describes a █████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ██ ███████
This is exactly the role played by the claim that ice-age nomads are often portrayed as big-game hunters. The anthropologist’s argument is focused on proving why that portrayal is wrong, by showing that ice-age nomads mostly ate plants and small animals.