vomhorizon wrote:
Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. Hence, the anthropologists’ claim is false.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) confuses a condition’s being required for a
given result to occur in one case with the
condition’s being sufficient for such a result to
occur in a similar case
(B) takes for granted that if one species had a
characteristic that happened to enable it to
survive certain conditions, at least one related
extinct species must have had the same
characteristic
(C) generalizes, from the fact that one species with
a certain characteristic survived certain
conditions, that all related species with the
same characteristic must have survived exactly
the same conditions
(D) fails to consider the possibility that
Australopithecus afarensis had one or more
characteristics that lessened its chances of
surviving prehistoric times
(E) fails to consider the possibility that, even if a
condition caused a result to occur in one case,
it was not necessary to cause the result to
occur in a similar case
OA, After some time..
The correct answer here is A.
Counter Premise: Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments.
Premise: There is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct.
Conclusion: The anthropologists’ claim is false.
(A) confuses a condition’s being required for a given result to occur in one case with the condition’s being sufficient for such a result to occur in a similar case
"a condition’s being required for a given result to occur in one case"
Condition:ability to cope with diverse natural environments
Result: Survival
Case: Humans
Similar case: Australopithecus afarensis
So, here the choice says that the argument treats the condition to be
sufficient. That might not be the case.
(B) takes for granted that if one species had a characteristic that happened to enable it to survive certain conditions, at least one related
extinct species must have had the same characteristic
This makes no sense. The choice itself is contradictory. It is talking about the 'survival' of least one 'extinct' species.
(C) generalizes, from the fact that one species with a certain characteristic survived certain conditions, that all related species with the
same characteristic must have survived exactly the same conditions
This is untrue. The argument is not generalizing. It is holding up a specific case to disprove a claim.
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Australopithecus afarensis had one or more characteristics that lessened its chances of surviving prehistoric times
We don't have information to comment on characteristics that would 'lessen' chances of survival.
(E) fails to consider the possibility that, even if a condition caused a result to occur in one case, it was not necessary to cause the result to
occur in a similar case
The word 'sufficient' in place of necessary would have made it a better contender.
Regards,
Shouvik.