The conclusion is that the strategy of studying modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors has a flaw -- and the flaw is that forager societies are extremely varied. Why is this a flaw?
- If some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in order to learn about ancient foragers, this implies that those anthropologists believe that what is true of modern-day foragers is generally true of ancient foragers.
- But what if forager societies are extremely varied? This might suggest that even if two groups are both forager societies, those groups might not actually share common characteristics.
- This, in turn, calls into question the anthropologists' belief that what is true of one group of foragers is generally true of another group of foragers.
Quote:
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.
Choice (A) reassures us that, even if forager societies are extremely varied, they are still likely to share a number of important features. This suggests that we
can learn about ancient foragers by studying modern foragers, even if those two groups have many differences. Thus, the flaw presented in the conclusion is not actually a flaw, and the criticism is not valid. Keep choice (A).
Quote:
(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
We are trying to determine whether studying modern-day societies of foragers to learn about our ancient forager ancestors is a flawed strategy. The fact given in choice (B) neither supports nor weakens the author's argument. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
Again, we are trying to determine if the author's criticism is valid. The fact that all anthropologists study modern-day societies has no impact on the author's argument, so choice (C) should be eliminated.
Quote:
(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
The argument criticizes the strategy employed by
some anthropologists. It makes no difference how many anthropologists use that strategy. Choice (D) does not
weaken the criticism.
Quote:
(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
The argument is that modern-day forager societies and ancient forager societies are so different that anthropologists cannot learn about one by studying the other. This statement strengthens that criticism by stressing that modern-day forager societies--even those that have not had significant contact with modern societies--are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
So (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.
, Iam finding it difficult to eliminate D option here, my reasoning was that since the anthropologists are not drawing inferences, that means they aren't following their strategy because after all what their strategy is to study about modern forager societies and infer about ancient societies, which should weaken the criticism that the strategy is flawed, as whole basis to make criticism was on the fact that the societies are varied.
Also could you elaborate your explanation as to how you took this explanation to numbers, as you said it won't matter how many anthropologists follow this strategy
close
17 Jul 2021, 07:27
