The correct answer is A.

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.
_________________

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
What if the tribe the Anthropologist contacted was the last such tribe, and now there remains no such uncontacted tribe in Madagascar’s rainforests?

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
- Incorrect

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
- Incorrect

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.
- Correct.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
- Incorrect. This is not the major flaw in the argument.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
- Incorrect

Answer C

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
It is irrelevant as whatever anthropologist mentions it doesn’t affect his claim

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
It is irrelevant

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.
Presupposes: unexplored section of Madagascar’s rainforests
He assumes that unexplored means whatever he finds there it is something new discovery.
So he assumes that unexplored section would have atleast one untouched tribe.
Hence C


D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
By using words: new discovery, he didn’t consider into account whether this tribe is already known . The argument mentions atleast one , so he is not sure whether after exploring in deep he may find another tribe that is untouched. But it doesn’t affect the conclusion w.r.t one tribe.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
Communication language is irrelevant

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.- Incorrect. The author does state that because the tribe is not aware of the outside world, the tribe is not yet discovered or contacted.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.- Incorrect. Out of scope. It does not matter what the tribes wish for.

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.- Incorrect. This argument is not circular reasoning. The author states a premise then comes to a conclusion.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.- Correct choice. The author assumes that because the tribe has no knowledge about the outside world, the tribe has never been contacted or discovered by anyone before. Hence, this is the flaw in the author's reasoning.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.- Incorrect. out of scope. we are not bothered about the language of communication between the author and tribe.

Premise: 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.

Conclusion: This new discovery proves that there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe living in Madagascar’s rainforests.

Here, the author is basically trying to assume that this tribe had never interacted with outsiders. Hence he/she states that this is a new discovery.

Option D identifies this assumption.

I think the answer is D

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. -- it does not give any evidence that there are some more tribes like this.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world. -- Not relevant

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish. -- No

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders. -- Out of context

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language. -- This is not a part of argument

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.

It is close choice but too generic statement. So option A is wrong.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.

What’s the wish of the tribes is unrelated to the argument. So option B is wrong

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.

Again too generic statement without much of the details. So option C is wrong.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.

Bingo. It clearly says that anthropologist assumed the same what he claimed without providing proper evidence about the claim in the context of the tribes he interacted. So option D is correct.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.

Which language natives are communicating is unrelated to the argument. So option E is wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
Incorrect as it already says unexplored.


B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
Out of scope

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.
Not really helpful. So incorrect

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
Can be true. Hold on to it

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
Can be a reason
Between D and E, i guess D is better choice. Since E talks about anthropologist's native language, which isn't established in the paragraph. D seems better choice. IMO D

Posted from my mobile device

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.

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 rainforest

Stimulus: The stimulus states that anthropologist during his recent canvas in the last undiscovered area of rainforest of Madagascar discovered an undiscovered tribe. The tribe were able to communicate to him that they had previously not interacted with anyone from the outside world. This as per the anthropologist there is one such tribe in the rainforest that was undiscovered.

The anthropologist’s argument is flawed in that it
It depends on the communication with the tribe. IMO E

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.

Posted from my mobile device

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

the gap in thus argumnent is that after his discovery he Makes a conclusion that there is anonotger undiscovered tribe. This is super illogical


A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim. well, id the fact that he found such tribe can be considered an evidence

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.this one is just irrelevant and does not fall into our gap

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.I believe that this one is correct. The argumnent takes the conclusion as a premice

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.it is just does not matter here

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
idn how they communicate and this one seems irrelevant to me

The answer is C

Posted from my mobile device

The anthropologist’s argument is flawed in that it

Pre-thinking: The argument concludes that there's at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe in Madagascar’s. If the tribe was discovered or contacted by someone else, before, the argument is flawed.

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.

It is mentioned that the locals communicated that they had no knowledge of the outside world. This can count as evidence.
Drop Option A.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.

Irrelevant. Drop Option B.

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.

It is not assumed in advance, that an undiscovered tribe exists.
Drop Option C.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.

There is no evidence that the tribe was not contacted/interacted with outsiders. Hence, claim on uncontacted is weak.
Keep Option D.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language

No mention of 'anthropologist’s native language', hence out of scope.
Drop Option E.

IMO Answer should be Option D.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Answer - C

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim. -EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CENTRAL CLAIM IS PROVIDED. IT WONT PROVIDE INFO ON THE UNDISCOVERED PART OF THE CONCLUSION. INCORRECT.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world. - IRRELEVANT

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish. - CORRECT.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders. - PARTLY. THIS DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION FOR THE UNDISCOVERED PART OF THE CONCLUSION. INCORRECT

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language - OUT OF SCOPE.

Posted from my mobile device

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
The argument does present his interaction with the group as evidence. We can refute it, but evidence is provided. Incorrect.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
Irrelevant. Whether tribes wish to be discovered or not, we only want to know whether such tribes exist.

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
Correct. Tribes only say "they have no knowledge of outside world". This does not mean they have not interacted with outsiders before. So they are not really "undiscovered" tribes.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
Does not matter if the communication happened in a particular language. As long as there was communication and it was understood on both sides, we are okay. Irrelevant.

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

There are few flaws in the reasoning:-
1. Whether group of natives may be considered a tribe. What if these group of people had no knowledge of outside world but other tribe members had knowledge and communicated with outside world.
2. Whether anthropologist correctly understood their language and understood what they were communicating.
3. Whether communication with group of natives can be taken as an evidence to support the claim.

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.
Anthropologist presents some evidence (communication with a group of natives). Incorrect

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.
Wish has no impact on the claim. Incorrect

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.
It is a generic statement. Anthropologist provides some evidence to support his claim. Incorrect

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.
The statement may be correct since anthropologist arrived at the conclusion without considering the other members of the tribe who could have interacted with outsiders.
Correct

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.
They might have used sign language to communicate. Incorrect

IMO D

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim.wrong. present evidence that they have communicated with him.

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world.irrelevant. it's their choice.

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish.wrong.it doesn't presupposes anything.

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders.present evidence that they have communicated with him.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language.correct

Based on his discussion with tribes, Anthropologist says that there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe...........In this, though the tribes have no outside knowledge they might have interacted with outsiders. So it's not that the tribe was undiscovered & uncontacted.


A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim..............No

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world......Not relevant

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish......................He had a discussion with tribes then he concluded. So we can not say

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders............This is what we were looking for.

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language...............not necessarily.

Evidence presented was about a tribe he encountered. Conclusion is "there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe living in Madagascar’s rainforests." Now, this tribe he came in contact with has been discovered (by him). So, this can't be the undiscovered tribe. So, there has to be some other tribe which is undiscovered. And he doesn't give any evidence of that.
Hence A is the right answer


Whether the tribe wants to contact the outside world is irrelevant when we are trying to answer "IF" they came in contact with outside world. It may or may not be by choice. So, doesn't matter. Hence, the flaw in the argument isn't this.


Well, he doesn't presuppose anything. Presuppose means to take something as given. Nowhere in the premise has the anthropologist done that. So, not the right answer.


Firstly, He does have some evidence: the tribe members told him so
Secondly, whether they had "PREVIOUSLY" come in contact with the outside world is irrelevant. The point is they have come in contact now. So, they are no longer undiscovered, or uniterracteed (to hell with grammar ) with outside world.


Nowhere has this been assumed. Neither is this assumption required. They may communicate in sign language for all we know. The point is there was communication. We can challenge whether the communication was proper or not, but that's not the objection raised by option E. Anyway, for reasons mentioned, E is wrong

Answer: A

Posted from my mobile device

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

argument premise is Anthropologist met a group of natives who communicated with him and told him that they had no knowledge about outside world :
Conclusion :This discovery proves that there remains at least one as yet undiscovered and uncontacted tribe living in Madagascar’s rainforests.
target : weaken the conclusion

A. Fails to present any evidence that directly supports its central claim. ; the interview conversation can be held as an evidence to claim so wrong option

B. Does not consider whether undiscovered tribes would wish to have contact with the outside world. ; correct choice as the Anthropologist is drawing a statement without knowing fact whether the undiscovered tribe want to contact outside world or not . correct choice

C. Presupposes what it seeks to establish. ; its wrong to say this as Anthropologist has communicated with tribe & he has established a conclusion based on it. eliminate C

D. Assumes, without evidence, that the tribe encountered by the anthropologist had not previously interacted with outsiders. ; premise of argument is based on information that tribe they had no knowledge of the outside world so this option strengthens the conclusion ; eliminate D

E. Depends on the unwarranted assumption that the natives were able to communicate correctly in the anthropologist’s native language. this can weaken the fact of that communication done b/w tribe & Anthropologist was misunderstood but this does not weaken the conclusion ... eliminate E
IMO B is correct