yunbao
For question 6/100, It can be inferred from the passage that Walker’s conclusion about the australopithecine diet would be called into question under which of the following circumstances? Why the option E) is wrong?
My thought is that, soft-bodied insects are not leaving any micro-wear pattern. So if there were a lot of such insects around, there was no way to tell whether australopithecine ate those insects or not. It can be they eat fruit like orangutans as well as soft-bodied insects.
Quote:
6. It can be inferred from the passage that Walker’s conclusion about the australopithecine diet would be called into question under which of the following circumstances?
(A) The tooth enamel of australopithecines is found to be much heavier than that of modern frugivorous primates.
(B) The micro-wear patterns of australopithecine teeth from regions other than east Africa are analyzed.
(C) Orangutans are found to have a much broader diet than is currently recognized.
(D) The environment of east Africa at the time australopithecines lived there is found to have been far more varied than is currently thought.
(E) The area in which the australopithecine specimens were found is discovered to have been very rich in soft-bodied insects during the period when australopithecines lived there.
First, let's discuss option (C). The passage specifically tells us that "[Walker's] conclusion that australopithecines were frugivores (fruit eaters) is based upon his observation that the tooth micro-wear characteristics of east African australopithecine specimens are indistinguishable from those of chimpanzees and orangutans, which are commonly assumed to be frugivorous primates."
Phew, that's a mouthful, but it breaks down Walker's logic:
- East African australopithecine teeth have the same micro-wear patterns as chimp/orangutan teeth.
- Chimps/orangutans are fruit eaters.
- Therefore, australopithecines were also fruit eaters.
Choice (C)
directly contradicts the second bullet. If orangutans ate much more than just fruit, then Walker's logic completely falls apart--the fact that australopithecine and orangutan teeth have similar patterns would NOT suggest that the australopithecines were fruit eaters. That makes (C) a solid answer.
Choice (E), on the other hand, while tempting, does not affect Walker's logic. Sure, there may have been a ton of soft-bodied insects around. There may have also been an abundance of seeds, wheat, small rodents, pizza trees (if only that were a real thing!), sushi bushes, etc., but that doesn't mean that the australopithecines actually ATE those things. Sure, if soft-bodied insects were NOT around, we would have solid evidence that the australopithecines did NOT eat them. However, the presence of soft-bodied insects, without any other evidence, does not call Walker's conclusion into question.
I hope that helps!
Such a fantastic explanation. Thanks for this!