PT8.S1.Q18 - Prehistoric wooden tools

Comments

• 1 Like

  Burden.of.Floof Member

  July 2021 edited July 2021 1050 karma

  I just did this section and this question got me timed. I'm going to post the part of the write-up I did on this question. Hope it helps!

  Smith responds to Jones by attacking the idea that because no such tools were found, it means that there weren’t the migrations needed to make the conclusion true. The fact that no such tools were found isn’t enough support to say that they weren’t there. I think, the key to this question is realizing that Smith isn’t saying: You’re wrong, tools were found. That would be attacking the premise. Smith is attacking an assumption, because Jones is assuming that because tools weren’t found, it means that they weren’t there.

  It's the difference between directly disputing the premise itself by saying: I don't think your premise is true. Versus disputing the assumption, which is saying: I don't think this is supported based on this missing piece of data, but it leaves open the possibility that it still could be true.

  I actually made a note of this question after I did it, because I think this is an important question to remember. It's really important to understand what attacking different parts of the argument look like. What it means to attack a premise vs. a conclusion vs. an assumption.
• 1 Like

  elevator_music Core Member

  July 2021 151 karma

  I think this is a classic case of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence--Smith's argument challenges precisely that (E). C is not correct because Smith does not say that the evidence is not accurate (they concede that yes tools were found 13000 years ago as Jones claimed), but they rather point out that the evidence is not interpreted to its fullest potential. Smith points out a weakness that there could have been tools dated to an earlier period on the migration route but the environmental factors could have played a role in the current lack of evidence.