Recent DNA analysis shows that the majority of modern humans alive tod

Option C doesn't look appropriate weakener.
This option talks about religious behavior in general to all, something that might still hold good even European practices same in peculiar way. And question argument talks about a peculiar way of European practice.

Argument is not about whether everyone practices religion, but whether European do have peculiar way.

In my opinion option B could be a weakener. Incase found evidences are not at all have a religious significance then they don't stand to conclude about religious behaviour.

Hi

It would be really great if one explains the contention between C and D. I believe both weaken the argument but will go with C as it attacks the comparison of Europe with the world.

Why not option A? If it is true then we can assume that there were evidences that weren't well preserved in non European areas which is why we couldn't find them leading to a bias in the researchers' assertion.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi

The option A states an out of scope possibility to negate the occurrence of evidence at other places in the world while the argument establishes the comparison between Europeans' behavior and those of other people in the world.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja Can you please explain this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi,
In questions pertaining to surveys or polls or scientific experiments, in order to weaken the conclusion is it sufficient to negate the survey? Can we state that the results are wrong and thus a faulty conclusion is invalid?
So does B match this?

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

sayan640:

Most modern humans have some DNA common with Ns.
First evidence of religious behavior has been found in excavations of Neanderthal dwellings in France

Assertion: Europeans are genetically programmed for religious behavior in ways that people from other areas of the world are not.

Odd, right?! How did Europeans come in the conclusion? Note "in France". So it seems that since first evidence of religion has been found in Ns in France, the conclusion is that Europeans are genetically programmed for religion while others are not. This is certainly a stretch. What if Ns of other areas also showed religious behaviour? Then people from other parts of the world could also be genetically programmed for religion. This is what (C) says. Every known human culture has shown religious behaviour. So everybody's predecessors had religious traits. Weakens our conclusion.

A The areas of the Neanderthal excavations have climates in which artifacts are exceptionally well preserved, unlike other area of early human activity,

This option tells us something common about all Neanderthals. Not relevant.

B There is disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the artifacts found in Neanderthal excavations actually indicate religious behavior.

We are given that archaeologists believe that the first evidence of religious behavior has been found in excavations of Neanderthal dwellings in France. Even if there is some disagreement, they have collectively arrived at this decision.

D A significant portion of modern Europeans do not practice any religion.

Doesn't matter. We are concluding that they are genetically programmed to practice religion. Whether they actually do is irrelevant.

E It is impossible to tell by looking at someone whether he or she has Neanderthal DNA.

We are given that most humans have N DNA. We don't need to look at tell whether they have or not.

Answer (C)