Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. The controversy is over the development of "sophisticated" tools, not basic tools, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Debate - Did humans stand first, or start developing sophisticated tools first?

Scientist: Stand first, because advanced toolmaking requires free hands, which is possible when standing.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus poses a debate between two alternatives, and the Scientist takes a side and provides reasoning for it.

That reasoning, however, doesn't take the form of evidence, but rather of logic. A rule is established—developing advanced tools requires the use of free hands. From this, the Scientist argues since standing allows the free use of hands, it is likely that that happened first.

However, there are certainly other ways to get the free use of hands without standing—lying on your back or sitting come to mind. There's also no actual evidence—fossils or carbon dating or any of that stuff. As such, we should look for answers that bring up evidence countering the Scientist's logic, especially evidence that suggests the tools were developed by human ancestors while they were not standing.

Answer Explanation:
Hunting weapons fall under the definition of "tool," so if there are artifacts counting as advanced tools from the time period before humans were standing, that directly contradicts the Scientist's position that standing happened before advanced toolmaking did. This answer, therefore, weakens her argument.

Key Takeaway:
Scientific arguments will generally rely on hard evidence to reach their conclusion, even if they also use logical relationships and principles to apply that hard evidence. When a science-based argument rests solely on logical relationships and principles, there's a good chance that a Weaken question will present hard evidence to counter it.

Incorrect. This answer can feel as if it provides a counterexample, but it doesn't because it aligns with the timeline. If standing developed before advanced tools, then there would presumably be a time period after humans started standing but before they developed tools. Finding human ancestors that stood upright but didn't yet have tools strengthens the argument that standing happened first.

Incorrect. The fact remains that humans developed advanced tools, the question is over when. And the stimulus doesn't say that humans needed more dexterous hands to develop advanced tools, just the free use of them. This answer, therefore, doesn't affect the argument.

Incorrect. The question is whether the development of these tools required human ancestors to stand upright, not whether the use of such tools required it, so this answer doesn't weaken the argument. Even today, many tools don't require you to stand up (as anyone who has used a computer while sitting at a desk can attest to).