The primatologist does not suggest that certain facts could not be true if the anthropologist’s conclusion was correct. She demonstrates that an additional argument is absurd in the same way the anthropologist’s argument is absurd.

The primatologist’s argument relates to a completely different topic than the anthropologist’s argument. Her argument about bank cash machines does not have a premise about vervet monkeys.

The reasoning step the primatologist applies is the reasoning step of concluding that because a prediction was correct, the assumption used to make that prediction is also correct.

The primatologist does not attack the anthropologist’s expertise. She addresses the anthropologist’s argument directly without focusing on the anthropologist’s personal characteristics.

There is no key term or key phrase that the primatologist suggests the anthropologist is misinterpreting.