vineetgupta wrote:
Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. Although scientists attribute these tools to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska, this cannot be correct. In order to have reached a site so far south, these peoples must have been migrating southward well before 13,000 years ago. However, no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America.
Smith: Your evidence is inconclusive. Those tools were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas. Wooden tools in soils other than peat bogs usually decompose within only a few years.
The point at issue between Jones and Smith is
(A) whether all prehistoric tools that are 13,000 years or older were made of wood
(B) whether the scientists’ attribution of tools could be correct in light of Jones’s evidence
(C) whether the dating of the wooden tools by the scientists could be correct
(D) how long ago the peoples who crossed into the American from Siberia to Alaska first did so
(E) whether Smith’s evidence entails that the wooden tools have been dated correctly
Official Explanation
(A) No. Whether prehistoric tools were composed of substances other than wood is not discussed.
(B) Yes. They are arguing over the meaning of the evidence. Jones argues that if the wooden tools found in South America were from peoples who migrated from Alaska then there should be even older wooden tools along the path they took. Perhaps 13,500 year-old wooden tools in Central America and 14,000 year-old wooden tools in North America.
Smith, on the other hand, refutes Jones’s claim by pointing out that older wooden tools were not found along the migration route because they quickly decompose except in peat bogs, which are rare along the path.
(C) No. There is no discussion of the accuracy of the dating method used.
(D) No. Although this issue is probably in dispute, we cannot tell from the excerpt. Smith does not state or imply that the people crossed at a particular time; rather he points out a flaw in Jones’s interpretation of the evidence.
(E) No. The meaning of the evidence is in dispute, not its accuracy. Ostensibly, they both accept that the tools are 13,000 years old. At issue is whether this precludes the possibility of the tools being from people who migrated from Alaska.