PrepTest 146

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that language wasn't necessary for the Neanderthals to possess language to make their tools, not that the Neanderthals didn't have language. This answer undermines an argument the Anthropologist doesn't make.

Incorrect. The outcome here is still the same—both groups were able to make the tools with equal skill. That still suggests language isn't necessary for making Neanderthal tools.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study Ð See the effect of language on the development of proficiency in making Neanderthal tools
Group 1 Ð Taught to make one tool with visual and verbal explanations
Group 2 Ð Taught to make one tool with only visual explanations
Results Ð Both groups learned to make the tools at about the same speed and skill
Conclusion Ð Language wasn't necessary for Neanderthals to make their sophisticated tools

Answer Anticipation:
There's an experiment here, so we should start by considering a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw.

The sample here is two groups of university students. There's no indication that this group is or isn't generally representative, but the conclusion here is that language wasn't necessary for the Neanderthals to make their tools, so representativeness doesn't really matter—if a group can make the tools as well without language, then it's possible Neanderthals could, as well. There might be an issue with comparing the abilities of modern humans to Neanderthals, so we can look out for an answer that calls that assumption into question.

As to correlation/causation, there's no causal conclusion here, nor is there a correlation in the premises, so we can rule out this flaw.

Since neither of these flaws has yielded a solid anticipation, we should look at the study itself to see if there are any shortcomings. And one phrase should jump out—"one of the types" of tools made by Neanderthals. The conclusion is about the entire toolbox—"their sophisticated tools"—and so basing that broad conclusion on teaching proficiency in a single tool seems questionable. This is a sampling flaw in a technical sense, though of a different sort than we're used to seeing in analyzing the people involved in the survey/study. Any answer that highlights a relevant difference between the single tool used in the study and the average tool (something to do with levels of sophistication, maybe) will weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
If the tools included in this experiment were the "easy to make" ones, then it's possible that the more complex tools would show a difference between the two groups in proficiency. Since this calls into question the representativeness of the task in the study, it weakens the study and thus the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Sampling flaws aren't just related to the people involved in the study—other elements of an experiment can fail to adequately represent an element of the conclusion. Always check to see if the conclusion is more general or comprehensive than the matching element in the study would allow.

Incorrect. If the instructor for the silent group wasn't proficient and yet that group was able to overcome that and match the proficiency of the speaking group, that suggests that a lack of language might even help create these tools.

Incorrect. Without knowing if the tools created by these humans required language to make proficiently, this answer is wholly out of scope. Even if we knew that they did require language, as they were much more sophisticated than the Neanderthal tools, it's unclear this information would tell us anything relevant to the stimulus.