Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 4 · Question 10

A tempting answer, but a subtle shift here! This answer states that it's known that Neanderthals had the manual dexterity to create the cave paintings. The argument doesn't require scientists to have knowledge of that fact; it requires only that the Neanderthals had that ability.

Too extreme. While the gap between the premise and intermediate conclusion relates to the primacy of Neanderthals in Spain at the time (in order to connect knowledge of just the time period and location to the likelihood that the paintings are by the Neanderthals), it doesn't require that no other hominid species inhabited any part of Europe at the time.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
A cave painting in Spain was created 40,800 years ago. Therefore, it's likely by a Neanderthal. Therefore, Neanderthals could think symbolically.

Answer Anticipation:
In a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question with an intermediate conclusion, the gap in reasoning can be between the premise and intermediate conclusion, or the premises and the main conclusion.

In this argument, the gap between the premise and intermediate conclusion is that Neanderthals were around and the primary species 40,800 years ago.

The gap between the premises and main conclusion is that the creation of a cave painting is evidence of symbolic thought.

We'll have to stay flexible, as either answer could be correct!

Answer Explanation:
This answer strikes at the heart of the assumption between the premises and main conclusion. If the ability to create cave paintings doesn't indicate an ability to think symbolically, then the author's argument falls apart, as these paintings are no longer good evidence for the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
For arguments that have intermediate conclusions, be sure to spot any assumptions between the premise(s) and intermediate conclusion, as well as between the premises (including the intermediate conclusion) and main conclusion.

This evidence doesn't need to be the first evidence in order to be good evidence. If other evidence already exists, this evidence could still suggest the traditional view is wrong. For this answer to be correct, the conclusion would need to state that this is the first evidence to call the traditional view into question.

This answer is the inversion of what the argument needs. We're looking for an answer stating that cave paintings is evidence for symbolic thought, not that a lack of cave paintings is evidence against symbolic thought.