Bunuel wrote:
Scientist: A controversy in paleontology centers on the question of whether prehistoric human ancestors began to develop sophisticated tools before or after they came to stand upright. I argue that they stood upright first, simply because advanced toolmaking requires free use of the hands, and standing upright makes this possible.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the scientist’s argument?
(A) Many animals that do not stand upright have learned to make basic tools.
(B) Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright.
(C) Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no sophisticated tools.
(D) Those prehistoric human ancestors who first came to stand upright had no more dexterity with their hands than did those who did not stand upright.
(E) Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able to stand upright.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The scientist says free use of the hands is necessary to make advanced tools, therefore prehistoric humans must have stood upright before they were able to make advanced tools. The problem with this argument is that “free use of the hands” and “standing upright” are not the exact same thing. Aren’t there other ways to get free use of the hands? What about sitting? What about hanging from your tail or your feet? What about lying on your back? All of these seem to be other ways that one might get free use of the hands, so this is my main problem with the scientist’s logic.
We’re asked to weaken the scientist’s logic, and I’m pretty happy with the attack we’ve already started above.
A) This is an attractive trap, but it’s conclusively wrong because it’s about
basic tools whereas the argument was about
advanced tools. For that reason, this answer is irrelevant.
B) “Advanced hunting weapons” sounds pretty damn close to “advanced toolmaking.” If there was a prehistoric human with advanced hunting weapons before standing upright, it seriously calls the scientist’s argument into question. This looks like a good weakener.
C) Just because some prehistoric humans stood upright before having advanced tools doesn’t mean that standing upright wasn’t a precursor to having advanced tools. In fact, it actually helps that idea. This is a strengthener, if anything, and we’re looking for a weakener.
D) Dexterity in the hands is only vaguely related to the argument in question here. And again, this answer could actually be used to suggest the idea that standing upright was first, then dexterity was gained, then advanced toolmaking came next. We’re looking for a weakener, and this could be read as a strengthener. Out.
E) My Roomba is an “advanced tool,” and it most definitely does not require me to stand upright while using it. Quite the opposite. But free use of the hands were required to make the Roomba in the first place. This doesn’t attack the conclusion of the argument, so it’s not a good weakener.
Our answer is B.