PT5.S1.Q8 - The interpretation of certain footprints

Ashley2018-1

This is a weakening question so my goal is to cast doubt on T's conclusion that the footprints were made by hominids

The evidence R has against T's conclusion is that in order for the footprints they both observed at site G to be made by hominids, they would have had to have walked in a cross-stepping manner. When I first read this , I still thought it was a possibility these footprints were still made by hominids; maybe the hypothetical hominids in question chose to walk in that odd manner or did so by accident? So I couldn't come up with a precise pre-phase but went into the choices trying to see if there was something that could strengthen R's evidence.

I get that B weakens T's conclusion because it suggests the footprints were made by a bear walking normally instead of cross walking humans, but what is wrong with C? Is C incorrect because it strengthens T's conclusion? And why is D incorrect? wouldn't it be problematic for T's conclusion if the footprints they were looking at were incomplete?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]."

cwrussell42

C doesn't undermine T's conclusion because the lack of a cross stepping pattern is already something we know to be consistent with human prints. T's conclusion is predicated on the idea that these could be human prints despite the cross stepping, so what does a lack of cross stepping at another unrelated site have to do with it?

D says that there is a lack of detail in the prints but the stimulus indicates that the details that T is basing their conclusion on are clearly visible and gives no indication that there is an issue with the details of the prints, but rather the cross step pattern, which a lack of detail neither promotes nor undermines.