Hello, everyone. I came across this question today and noticed that no Expert has yet chimed in, so I will offer my thoughts in an effort to assist the community. I took 1:40 to answer the question, and I agree with the OA. The reason is that, as we will come to see, it is the only answer that aligns with what the argument says. But now I am getting ahead of myself. In most CR questions, I like to peek at the question first so that I know how to interpret the information as I encounter it in the passage. This one is a patent
weaken-the-argument question. It is worth mentioning that in any question of this type, you want to
make sure you are basing your answer on exactly what the argument states, or else speculation and logical associations can take over and get you into trouble.
chesstitans wrote:
Recent DNA analysis shows that the majority of modern humans alive today have at least some genetic material in common with Neanderthal humans. Archaeologists believe that the first evidence of religious behavior has been found in excavations of Neanderthal dwellings in France. The presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans has led some scholars to assert that Europeans are genetically programmed for religious behavior in ways that people from other areas of the world are not.
Sentence 1 provides background information that will fuel the eventual argument. Science has shown that
the majority of people today have
at least some Neanderthal genetic material.
Sentence 2 introduces a belief among
archaeologists, namely that excavations of former Neanderthal dwellings can be taken as
the first evidence of religious behavior.
Sentence 3 draws the two previous sentences together in the form of an assertion made by
some scholars:
Europeans are genetically programmed for religious behavior, but the argument does not end there. Apparently, this genetic-religious connection is unique to Europeans, as
in ways that people from other areas of the world are not makes explicit.
To weaken this argument, we need to find a way to negate the assertion. If we stick to the exact conclusion, rather than allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of the first two sentences, this seems a pretty straight-arrow task.
chesstitans wrote:
A The areas of the Neanderthal excavations have climates in which artifacts are exceptionally well preserved, unlike other area of early human activity,
In my first pass, I held on to this answer in hopes of finding a stronger contender. The logic might go that if the Neanderthal artifacts are
exceptionally well preserved, then perhaps other cultures, perhaps even non-(eventual) European cultures, had also practiced some form of religious behavior, so the link in the argument between genetic programming and religious behavior
in Europeans exclusively is damaged if not severed. The problem is, we have no insight into the nature of these non-extant artifacts. Sure, they could have been religious in nature, but they could just as easily have been utilitarian and secular. We will never know. The important point to appreciate is that the argument could still hold, as we have no evidence against it. I like to say that if the answer choice is one step removed from directly addressing the stimulus, then you are probably on the wrong track. That proves to be the case with this one.
chesstitans wrote:
B There is disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the artifacts found in Neanderthal excavations actually indicate religious behavior.
Maybe the ones who are arguing in favor of the religious indicators are right. Just because
some archaeologists disagree, we cannot say for certain that the argument is weakened. To knock out the conclusion, we have to attack the ideas it puts forth, not focus on the group of people who established a premise.
chesstitans wrote:
C Evidence of religious behavior has been found in every known human culture.
So simple, yet there is no way for the conclusion to hold if this were true. Notice the keyword
evidence. In other words, there is something concrete to back up the notion that religious behavior is
not genetically codified into Europeans
in ways that people from other areas of the world lack. It seems as though any human being, European or not, is just as likely as another to exhibit religious behavior. Whether that behavior stems from genetic programming is then a non-issue altogether, but no matter how far we choose to pursue this line of thought, the original argument is diminished, and that is our goal. In short, we have a winner.
chesstitans wrote:
D A significant portion of modern Europeans do not practice any religion.
Genetic encoding for a behavior and the actual exhibiting of a behavior are not one and the same. As a related side, I am sure you have heard some parents boast about the
potential that their son or daughter has in one activity or another: so-and-so is gifted at math, can recite copious amounts of information, can run like the wind... The list seems endless. Yet what happens in every case? Sooner or later, that child grows up and
chooses something, and even a polymath develops certain skills over others, eschewing potential for something more tangible, something with demonstrable results. Getting back to this statement, whether modern Europeans do or do not
practice religion is irrelevant. They could still be genetically programmed for religious behavior, and such programming could still be unique to Europeans. The argument could hold, and that is not what we want.
chesstitans wrote:
E It is impossible to tell by looking at someone whether he or she has Neanderthal DNA.
The easiest answer to eliminate, in my mind. You will note that the argument is not based on the appearance of anyone, and the passage tells us outright (in sentence 1) that
the majority of modern humans alive today have at least some genetic material in common with Neanderthal humans. The argument is, however, concerned with where people were born, as the scholars assert the supposed connection in Europeans only. This option introduces an irrelevant concern, nothing more.
I hope that helps. I enjoyed this one, and I hope if nothing else, I have adequately stressed the point that to deconstruct an argument, you have to keep an eye on the argument itself, on the
exact way it is presented.
Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew