PT35.S4.Q20 - a skeleton of a north american mastodon

Comments

• 1 Like

  btate87 Alum Member

  October 2017 788 karma

  This question made it into my "return to frequently" pile, and I was actually just reviewing it again the other day. It is a pain of a stimulus for sure. For me the trick to this one is not letting it divert your attention away from what the actual conclusion is. They crank up the difficulty with the "Thus, since" construction which inserts a premise right after it gears you up for the conclusion. The question's made a quite a bit easier to answer by some answer choices that are pretty lousy, though, if you keep the conclusion in mind. If you're like me, you fumbled the first read through under time pressure and they were fairly attractive, though.

  Conclusion: The first North American settlers from Eurasia came from a more distant part of Eurasia

  Premise 1: Projectile in mastodon doesn't match what was used int he parts of Eurasia closer to North America

  Premise 2a: Mastodons became extinct

  Premise 2b: Eurasian settlers had just gotten to North America before mastodons became extinct

  Premise 2 Implication: Eurasian settlers got to North America before the mastodons became extinct, so it must have been those not closest to North America

  I find it helpful to leave off the language that describes the time on questions like this once you've established the relationship between the events. I formulated it that way above for you.

  Hole in the Argument: The implication of Premise 2 is deeply flawed. It overlooks the fact that just because Eurasian settlers were there in time to have killed a mastodon does not mean that the mastodon in question was killed by a Eurasian settler or that the weapon came from a Eurasian settler.

  Desired Prephrase: "What if a settler not from Eurasia killed that mastodon?"

  Answer Choice A: This matches exactly: "The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age."

  Answer Choice B: This is useless information - even if they were nomadic we have no idea how large their range was.

  Answer Choice C: This piece of evidence identical to the mastodon in the stimulus - it can neither strengthen nor weaken

  Answer Choice D: This is a tempting trap in my opinion. I would rule it out quickly and avoid sinking time into it because intuitively it feels off - the language "Other...artifacts," "similar" It all just feels too vague. More importantly, though, if you do dig into it, it is actually a strengthen answer choice if anything.

  Answer Choice E: This is just too far removed. It is probably the most tempting because it's trying to tell you that settlers closest to North America would have preferred the climate. But we don't know they preferred climate conditions that were "more conducive" or that there weren't even better conditions somewhere more convenient for them to go to than North America. If you don't have a strong prephrase this is probably the answer that would throw you.

  Hope that helps!
• 1 Like

  stepharizona Alum Member

  October 2017 3197 karma

  The argument provides us with these basics facts:

  Eurasians settled in North America prior to the peak of the Ice Age

  A projectile used by one of these Euasians was found in a Mastadon who was from the Peak of the Ice Age.

  The projectile doesn't resemble anything used by any Eurasian from the areas that were closest to North America.

  The Argument concludes since the projectile doesn't resemble any projectile that would have been by Eurasians that lived in the area close to N.A prior to migrating there it MUST be that the Eurasians that settled in N.A. (and hunted the Mastadon) Must have come from a place further away in Eurasia.

  The author assumes that if similar projectiles were found in the parts of Eurasia closest
  To N.A. the that would mean that settlers came from that area. But since similar projectiles aren't found in that area the settlers (aka Eurasians who came to N.A.) must be from some other part of Eurasia.

  A) Weakens this because it says well this logic is wrong because a similar projectile isn't found anywhere in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age. So there is no way to determine if the settlers were from a close or far place away in Eurasia or even from Eurasia at all.
• LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 13286 karma

  @btate87 Thank you sooooo much. I'm actually going to print this out and the question for constant review. I'm not sure what it is but the freaking stimulus destroyed me. Even after knowing EXACTLY what the conclusion was I still had no idea what it was saying to me....

  @stepharizona Thank you! I'm going to print out your answer as well to help really entrench this into my brain. I'm gunna pin the question on the wall with both of your explanations and review it every time I leave the room....