PT5.S1.Q8 - Interpretation of certain footprints

Ashley2018-1

Why is D incorrect? Can't it indicate the footprints were incomplete?

canihazJD

Assume it does indicate the footprints were incomplete.

T's argument is:
They show human characteristics
So they're hominid prints

Does the fact that some details are missing from the print (note: which they would be anyway, no matter what) weaken? What would those missing details reveal? They they were in fact hominid or that they were definitely not? We have no idea.

kyopoyuri

The fact that some of the details were erased doesn't change the fact that the remaining footprint still has definitively human characteristics - the squarish heel and the big toe.

Maybe the erased details show something really weird and non-human, maybe they just show other human characteristics. But you don't know for sure from the answer choice that the details would show that the feet are nonhuman. For all we know, Dr. Tyson could still be right and we could just be missing extra human characteristics from the footprint.

Ashley2018-1

Yeah, I thought the missing details could show more non-human characteristics but it's been pointed out it could have gone the other way, so I thought it was flawed that the doctor was looking at potentially incomplete evidence.