PrepTest 118

Incorrect. While most weren't, many were polished—and the polish on these ones could have been driven by an aesthetic sense.

Incorrect. Just because art didn't extend to the cave walls doesn't mean that aesthetics couldn't have driven certain practices in the creation of tools. Additionally, there could have been art on the walls of these caves that degraded over time.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests an aesthetic motivation and not a practical one.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Human ancestors made flints shinier than needed to hunt, so they must have been motivated by aesthetics.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument concludes that a certain phenomenon—shiny flints—has a certain explanation—motivated by aesthetics. Whenever a conclusion settles on an explanation for a given phenomenon, you should always start thinking about alternatives. Are there reasons other than aesthetics that our cave-dwelling ancestors may have polished these flints more than needed to hunt?

Well, sure—maybe they used them for something other than hunting that did require them to be that shiny. It's never established that these flints were used for hunting. If they had another use that required them to be as shiny as they are, then it's possible that the polishing is from necessity instead of aesthetics.

Answer Explanation:
This answer raises a question as to whether the polish on these flints was beyond what was needed for them to serve their purpose. While they were polished more than required for hunting, if they were used for other purposes, then practicality could have driven the polish instead of aesthetics. This answer raises a possibility left open by the stimulus, so it undermines the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Track purposes/motives when they show up in the argument! This argument was all about concluding an aesthetic motive based on something not being driven by a need to hunt. However, hunting as a motive for the creation of these tools was never established, and the correct answer pointed out that gap.

Incorrect. The argument only cares whether early humans had an aesthetic sense, not whether it benefited them or whether we understand those benefits. This answer is out of scope.