Loading...
Archaeologist: 100,000-year-old tools and ingredients for mixing colorful ocher paste were recently discovered in an African cave. More-recent prehistoric peoples are known to have used similar paste as paint to create art, thus proving that they were capable of symbolic thought. I conclude from the new discovery that people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the archaeologist's argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 100,000-year-old tools and ingredients for mixing colorful ocher paste were recently discovered in an African cave. |
|
| More-recent prehistoric peoples are known to have used similar paste as paint to create art, thus proving that they were capable of symbolic thought. |
|
| I conclude from the new discovery that people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago. |
|
The argument moves from a new archaeological discovery (100,000-year-old ocher tools) to an established fact about later peoples (they used similar paste for art and had symbolic thought), then draws a conclusion that the ancient people must have had the same symbolic thinking abilities.
People were capable of symbolic thought at least 100,000 years ago.
The argument uses an analogy structure: Since we know that later prehistoric people who used ocher paste had symbolic thought, and we found similar ocher tools from 100,000 years ago, the ancient people must have also had symbolic thought. The key assumption is that finding the tools means they were used the same way.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the archaeologist's conclusion that people 100,000 years ago were capable of symbolic thought
The key claim is about the activity/purpose connection: the archaeologist assumes that finding ocher paste tools means the same symbolic thought activity that more recent peoples demonstrated. The precision issue is whether same tools = same mental capabilities
To weaken this argument, we need to attack the connection between finding ocher paste tools and concluding symbolic thought. The archaeologist is assuming that because recent peoples used similar paste for symbolic art, the 100,000-year-old people must have used it the same way. We should look for scenarios where the same tools could have been used for completely different, non-symbolic purposes back then
Many prehistoric peoples who created symbolic art never used ocher paste as paint. This doesn't weaken the argument because it's about people who didn't use ocher paste, while our argument is specifically about people who did have ocher paste tools. The fact that some symbolic artists used other materials doesn't contradict the connection between ocher paste and symbolic thought for those who did use it.
The process of making the paste was so sophisticated that it probably could not have been developed by people incapable of symbolic thought. This actually strengthens the archaeologist's argument rather than weakening it. If making ocher paste required sophisticated thinking, then finding these 100,000-year-old tools would be even stronger evidence that ancient people had symbolic thought capabilities.
Prehistoric art in a region far from the recently discovered cave dates to well before 100,000 years ago. While this shows symbolic thought existed even earlier than 100,000 years ago, it doesn't weaken the specific claim that the people who had these ocher tools were capable of symbolic thought. If anything, it supports the general idea that ancient peoples had symbolic capabilities.
Some prehistoric peoples used ocher paste as an adhesive to attach small points to weapon shafts. This is the correct answer because it directly undermines the archaeologist's key assumption. The argument relies on the idea that finding ocher paste tools means the people used them for symbolic art (like more recent peoples). But if ocher paste had practical, non-symbolic uses like weapon-making, then finding these 100,000-year-old tools doesn't necessarily prove symbolic thought - they could have been making weapons instead of art.
Not all prehistoric peoples with the capability for symbolic thought created any symbolic art. This doesn't weaken the argument because it's about people who had symbolic thought but didn't make art. Our argument goes the other direction - from finding tools to inferring symbolic thought. The fact that some symbolic thinkers didn't make art doesn't contradict the idea that people who made ocher paste (potentially for art) had symbolic thought.