Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. The Archaeologist believes that the belief fire was necessary to survive cold winters is doubtful, so the argument doesn't rely on fire being used for heat. Additionally, not being used for cooking is out of scope, so that portion of the answer is, by itself, enough of a reason to eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that heat was necessary for human survival, since colder temperatures would need to be addressed somehow to ensure survival.

Incorrect. The common view is about mastery of fire, which can't be said to have been achieved without being able to make/control it. This answer about naturally occurring fires, therefore, is out of scope.

Incorrect. Why humans mastered fire is out of scope for when they mastered fire and if it was necessary to live in Europe.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Common viewpoint: Fire was necessary for humans to survive Europe's cold winters.
Counterevidence: The earliest evidence of controlled fire in Europe is from 400k years ago.
Conclusion: The common viewpoint is doubtful.

Answer Anticipation:
When counterevidence to a viewpoint is presented, make sure that it's established that the evidence actually addresses it! Here, the counterevidence is about a timeline (400k years ago), but the viewpoint doesn't have a specific timeline attributed to it. In order for the evidence presented to counter the common view, it must be accepted that humans were in Europe more than 400k years ago, thus making the absence of fire a problem for the view.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a timeline for human habitation in Europe. If there were no humans in Europe more than 400k years ago, then a lack of controlled fire wouldn't prove anything about what is required for human habitation and the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Timelines are always important when they're raised in a stimulus. Evidence needs to be tied into any timeline established, and counterevidence—in particular—needs to be known to apply in the situation it's intended to counter.