Quote:
Anthropologist: During my recent canvass of the last previously unexplored section of Madagascar’s rainforests, I met a group of natives who communicated to me that they had no knowledge of the outside world. This new discovery proves that there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe living in Madagascar’s rainforests.
The anthropologist’s argument is flawed in that it
A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.
D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
The anthropologist concludes that “there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe living in Madagascar’s rainforests,” but the only evidence on offer describes a tribe that has been both discovered and contacted. In fact, the tribe “communicated to” the anthropologist, and the anthropologist describes this experience as a “discovery.” Furthermore, since this was a “canvass” – a close inspection or scrutiny – of “the last previously-unexplored section of Madagascar’s rainforests,” if anything this evidence suggests that there no longer “remain” any further undiscovered, uncontacted tribes.
Quite simply, the flaw in the argument is that the evidence it offers does not directly – or even indirectly – support the anthropologist’s central claim. This is A.
Answer B, while admirably considerate, is simply not relevant to a conclusion about whether “there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe.”
Answer C sounds nice, in the sense that it ambiguously throws a bunch of argument jargon around in a way that sounds vaguely plausible. But what does it really mean? “Presupposes what it seeks to establish” means that the argument takes as a premise the very thing that it tries to establish as its conclusion. In short, such an argument would be circular.
However, the anthropologist’s conclusion about the continued existence of an “undiscovered and uncontacted tribe” is never taken as a premise. The argument does presuppose that the section of rainforest was “previously unexplored,” but this is not the same as the conclusion that the rainforest contains an “undiscovered and uncontacted tribe.” So, again, C sounds nice, but it lacks a basis in the argument as actually constructed.
Answer D is extremely tricky, because the anthropologist does seem to assume “that the tribe… had not previously interacted with outsiders.” However, the anthropologist does not assume this “without evidence” – after all, the group of natives themselves “communicated… that they had no knowledge of the outside world.” Whether or not this evidence is ironclad and infallible proof, it could hardly be argued that this fact is no evidence at all. Since the anthropologist’s assumption is not, therefore, “without evidence,” D is incorrect.
Answer E is also tempting, but the argument does not depend on the idea that the natives were able to communicate in the anthropologist’s native language. Perhaps the anthropologist took the time to learn the natives’ language. Perhaps the natives communicated through sign and/or body language that transcended the need for a common tongue. Perhaps the anthropologist and the natives both learned to speak some third language. Correctly speaking the anthropologist’s native language is simply not an assumption required by the argument, so E is wrong.
close
01 Sep 2020, 20:00
82%
(01:45)
wrong 
) with outside world.
