Anthropologist: Every human culture has taboos against eating certain animals. ████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ████████
The anthropologist concludes that taboos against eating certain animals may not have arisen for practical reasons, like the value of animal labor. This challenges some researchers’ view that the taboos must have had a practical basis. His reasoning is that it’s possible the taboos against eating animals arose first, and people only realized afterwards that they could use the animals for labor.
The anthropologist challenges some researchers’ hypothesis by offering an alternative that accounts for the same facts. He doesn’t claim their hypothesis is false, only that it isn’t necessarily true.
In the argument, the anthropologist
calls an explanation ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████
establishes that an ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████████
rejects the reasoning ████ ██ ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████
argues in support ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████████ ████ █ █████ ███████████
describes a hypothesis █████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ████████