­Archaeologist: 100,000-year-old tools and ingredients for mixing

­Archaeologist: 100,000-year-old tools and ingredients for mixing colorful ocher paste were recently discovered in an African cave. More-recent prehistoric peoples are known to have used similar paste as paint to create art, thus proving that they were capable of symbolic thought. I conclude from the new discovery that people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago.

The archeologist's conclusion is the following:

people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago

We see that the archeolgist has reasoned, basically, that since 100-year-old versions of items used to make ocher paste were found and since prehistoric people have used similar paste to create art, people were capable of symbolic thought at the time the tools and ingredients for making the paste were originally assembled.

One thing that might jump out at us is that the argument jumps from "tools and ingredients" to "create art" and "capable of symbolic thought" even though it's not clear what the tools and ingredients were actually used for.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the archaeologist's argument?

The correct answer will somehow indicate that, even though the premises are true, the conclusion of the argument may not be.

A. Many prehistoric peoples who created symbolic art never used ocher paste as paint.

This choice is tempting because it could seem to weaken the connection between ocher paste and symbolic art.

However, this choice goes in the wrong direction to weaken the argument.

After all, this choice indicates that some art was made without ocher paste. OK, great, but that information doesn't mean that ocher paste was not used to make art.

In other words, this choice does not change the fact stated by the archeologist that some people did use similar paste to make art.

Eliminate.

B. The process of making the paste was so sophisticated that it probably could not have been developed by people incapable of symbolic thought.

This choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the archeologist's conclusion.

After all, if even just making the paste required symbolic thought, then we have even more reason to believe that "people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago."

In that case, we don't even have to assume that people used the paste to create art to arrive at the conclusion. The conclusion is supported just by the fact that it appears that people made the paste 100,000 years ago.

Eliminate.

C. Prehistoric art in a region far from the recently discovered cave dates to well before 100,000 years ago.

This choice may have the vibe of weakening the argument since it could appear to indicate that the archeologist was somehow incorrect about the items found in the cave. This choice could seem to indicate that the items may have nothing to do with art because art was created only in a region far from the cave in which the items were found.

At the same time, in answering Critical Reasoning questions, we have to be careful to go with the implications of stated facts and not with vibe.

In this case, the fact that there is prehistoric art that "dates to well before 100,000 years ago" actually strengthens the argument. After all, the point of the argument is that creating art requires symbolic thought and that, therefore, the existence of what appear to be 100-year-old items used for creating paste for art indicates that "people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago."

So, the fact that there is prehistoric art that "dates to well before 100,000 years ago" is an additional reason to believe the conclusion.

Eliminate.

D. Some prehistoric peoples used ocher paste as an adhesive to attach small points to weapon shafts.

This choice weakens the argument by attacking a key assumption that the argument relies on.

After all, the evidence for the conclusion isn't art. The evidence is items used for making paste that could have been used for making art. So, in arriving at the conclusion, the archeologist has assumed that those items were used for making paste that was used for making art.

This choice attacks that key assumption by indicating that the items found in the cave may not have been used for making art: they could have been used to make paste for attaching points to weapons shafts.

So, by providing a clear reason to believe that the items found may not have been used to create art, this choice weakens the case for the conclusion.

Keep.

E. Not all prehistoric peoples with the capability for symbolic thought created any symbolic art.

This choice could be tempting because it could appear to weaken the connection between "symbolic thought" and "symbolic art."

At the same time, this choice doesn't weaken the argument because it goes in the wrong direction to do so.

After all, this choice shows that "symbolic thought" doesn't necessarily result in "symbolic art." It doesn't show that "symbolic thought" is not required for creating "symbolic art."

So, even if this choice is true, there's still reason to believe that, if the tools and ingredients found were used for making art, then "people were capable of symbolic thought at least as far back as 100,000 years ago."

Eliminate.

Correct answer: D­