Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Question

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

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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.

YangYichen · Answer

OA is B they are discussing whether the evidence that no longer exists can serve as a proof that the attribution of the scientists is correct.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

What is Jones' argument?

No similar wooden tools dating to before 13,000 yrs found + takes a long time to migrate from Alaska to SA --> Wooden tools found in SA did not come from people who migrated from Siberia.

However, Smith disagrees with Jones' argument. 
He states that the LHS on the argument need not necessarily lead to the RHS. It is possible that such tools decayed over time and hence we can find no evidence of them.

Smith disagrees with the conclusion derived by Jones from the evidence that Jones states. Which answer option talks about this? Only answer option B.

When dealing with point at issue questions,  the correct answer option raises a issue on which the speakers have opposing viewpoints. 
 Any answer option on which both the speakers agree/disagree or on which one of the speakers opinion is not known would be incorrect.

Let us now look at the answer options - 
A - we do not know either Smith's or Jones' opinion on this issue. Also, note that the argument is concerned only with tools found in the Americas. Tools found in other continents are not relevant. Also, the argument is concerned only about tools made from wood. 
The issue here is whether the wooden tools found in SA came from people who migrated from Siberia. Since, we are not sure whether those people used tools made of other materials or not, this option is irrelevant.
B - Correct answer. Smith agrees with the viewpoint presented in the option. Scientists' attribution of the tools to people from Siberia could be true, according to Smith. Jones, however, does not agree with the scientists' attribution.
C - None of them question its accuracy. Quite possibly, they both agree that the dating is correct.
D - Not the issue that is discussed. The issue discussed is the Jones' conclusion - Wooden tools found in SA did not come from people who migrated from Siberia.
This option talks about something else. Jones only states that  if they did migrate from Siberia , they couldn't have migrated more than 13,000 years ago.
We do not know whether Jones agrees that people migrated to Americas from Siberia at all. 
" how long ago the peoples who crossed into the American from Siberia to Alaska first did so " - this suggests that Jones agrees that people migrated from Siberia at some point. We cannot infer such a thing from the argument
E - None of them question the accuracy of dating methods used.

A_Nishith · Answer

Jones’s Argument: 
Jones argues that the scientists' attribution of the prehistoric wooden tools cannot be correct.
The tools are dated to 13,000 years ago, but Jones asserts that for these people to have reached South America, they must have started migrating earlier.
However, Jones observes that no tools older than 13,000 years have been found in the regions between Alaska and South America, and this discrepancy is Jones's basis for rejecting the scientists' claim.

Smith’s Response: 
Smith does not directly deny Jones's claim but instead responds by addressing the evidence itself.
Smith points out that the tools were found in peat bogs, which help preserve wood. Since peat bogs are rare, most wooden tools found in other environments would have decomposed.
Smith suggests that the absence of older tools in other locations could be due to their decomposition, rather than evidence that people were not present earlier.

The Point at Issue: 
 Jones’s Claim:  The lack of older tools shows that the scientists' attribution is incorrect.
 Smith’s Counter:  The absence of older tools does not disprove the attribution because wooden tools likely decomposed unless preserved in rare environments like peat bogs.

Smith is arguing that Jones’s evidence (the lack of older tools) is inconclusive because of the nature of wooden tool decomposition. The point of contention is whether Jones's evidence is enough to challenge the scientists' attribution of the tools to the people migrating from Siberia.

(A): Incorrect – No discussion about all tools being made of wood.
(B): Correct – The disagreement centers on whether the scientists' attribution of the tools is valid given Jones’s evidence.
(C): Incorrect – The dating is not disputed by either party.
(D): Incorrect – Migration timing is not the main point of contention.
(E): Incorrect – Smith does not challenge the dating of the tools.

Answer: (B) whether the scientists’ attribution of tools could be correct in light of Jones’s evidence.

This option directly addresses the disagreement between Jones and Smith regarding the validity of the scientists' attribution of the tools, based on the available evidence (or lack thereof).

Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards