The conclusion is that the strategy of studying modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors has a flaw -- and the flaw is that forager societies are extremely varied. Why is this a flaw?

• If some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in order to learn about ancient foragers, this implies that those anthropologists believe that what is true of modern-day foragers is generally true of ancient foragers.
• But what if forager societies are extremely varied? This might suggest that even if two groups are both forager societies, those groups might not actually share common characteristics.
• This, in turn, calls into question the anthropologists' belief that what is true of one group of foragers is generally true of another group of foragers.

Choice (A) reassures us that, even if forager societies are extremely varied, they are still likely to share a number of important features. This suggests that we can learn about ancient foragers by studying modern foragers, even if those two groups have many differences. Thus, the flaw presented in the conclusion is not actually a flaw, and the criticism is not valid. Keep choice (A).


We are trying to determine whether studying modern-day societies of foragers to learn about our ancient forager ancestors is a flawed strategy. The fact given in choice (B) neither supports nor weakens the author's argument. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.


Again, we are trying to determine if the author's criticism is valid. The fact that all anthropologists study modern-day societies has no impact on the author's argument, so choice (C) should be eliminated.


The argument criticizes the strategy employed by some anthropologists. It makes no difference how many anthropologists use that strategy. Choice (D) does not weaken the criticism.


The argument is that modern-day forager societies and ancient forager societies are so different that anthropologists cannot learn about one by studying the other. This statement strengthens that criticism by stressing that modern-day forager societies--even those that have not had significant contact with modern societies--are importantly different from ancient forager societies.

So (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.
_________________

My ans is A. See, in the stem it said " A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied". So A "a number of important features in common" most weaken the argument.

E after spending 1 min 54s.

Now coming to the analysis:

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.

Argument: Anthropologists study modern-day forager societies to learn more abt. our ancestors.
Criticism: (i) Forager societies are extremely varied.
(ii) All the forager societies which anthropologists know about have contact with modern non-forager societies. Therefore, any conclusions made abt. our ancestors are bound to be wrong, as the behaviour of modern day foragers is affected by being in contact with non-foragers.

To weaken the criticism:

A--> states that Foragers throughout history have had features in common
This will for sure weaken (i)

B-->Strengthens (ii), therefore eliminate this option

C--> I don't see the relevance - IMO, this neither strengthens/weakens the criticisms

D--> Do not draw inferences - but the criticism is that the study in itself is useless - I eliminate this option too

E--> Strengthens (i)

Therefore the answer should be A

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient
ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied.
Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with
modern, non-forager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are
absent from other types of societies.
(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
(D) Many anthropologistswho study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient
societies on the basis of their studies.
(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are
importantly different from ancient forager societies.

[spoiler=][A]

Hi Chiranjeev,

This is a weakening question and i am confused between 2 choices A & D. To me both of them are weakening.
A. It states that there are common characteristics among forager societies. So, it weakens the conclusion in a way by weakening the two criticism points - societies are varied and contact with other modern societies- stated to draw the conclusion that anthropologists should not study ancient forager socities from modern ones. Hence, it is a weakener
D. It states that anthropologists do not take inferences from the studies. Again, this seems a valid weakener as it weakens the conclusion that anthropologists would not be taking any inferences as per the study in their understanding of Ancient forager societies and makes the criticism invalid.
Can you please explain how D is incorrect and also if my explanation for A is fine ?
Also, could you please state the conclusion for the argument.
The conclusion i was able to draw is :
The study by some anthropologists on modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient
ancestors but this study is flawed.

Hi,

Your explanation for A is correct.

First of all the conclusion of this passage is:

The strategy to study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers, is flawed.

In shortened form, the conclusion is: The given strategy used by anthropologists is flawed.

Now. coming to option D, there is a problem with option D: it either goes against the information presented in the passage or does not affect the conclusion.

Let's understand the two cases:

Case 1: When we say that drawing inferences about a population is same as learning about that population.
This is most plausible understanding of "inferences" used in option D. IF you are studying modern societies and saying that you are learning about ancient ancestors, then in all probability, you are drawing inferences about ancestors based on your observation of modern societies.
If we understand the meaning of "inferences" as such, then option D goes against the first statement of the passage:
"Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers"

Since option D goes against the information presented in the passage, it is incorrect.

Case 2: when we say "drawing inferences" is different from learning
In this case, what we are saying is that anthropologists are learning about ancient ancestors but they are not drawing inferences about them.

In such a case, option D does not affect the conclusion because the conclusion talks about a strategy to learn about ancient ancestors. The conclusion says that this strategy is flawed. Whether anthropologists draw inferences or not does not affect the conclusion as long as they learn about ancient ancestors from the study.

Does this help?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

You know what is the toughest thing about this questions? To properly find the conclusion.
The conclusion is that a flaw in this strategy is that they are extremely varied.

We want to weaken the criticism which is in fact the conclusion so we should keep focused here.
Naturally, A does a great job and straightly attacks the conclusion by saying the opposite. Tears it apart totally

So yeah, A is the right one
Cheers
J

Hi Chiranjeev,

Can you please help me understand why option E is wrong for this?

Option E says that modern day foragers who had contact with other societies are also not influenced. So it goes against the argument which says that we cannot learn about ancient foragers by studying modern foragers.

Please let me know where i have gone wrong.

Hi Deepak,

Thank you for your post.

Unfortunately, you have not understood choice E correctly.

Choice E talks about those modern-day forager societies that have NOT had much contact with modern societies. In your post, who have defined these societies in exactly the opposite terms. Another key thing that you have missed in choice E is that as per this option these modern-day forager societies, despite having had limited contact with other modern societies, are distinct from ancient forager societies.

In the light of the above analysis, do you think choice E strengthens the criticism noted in the argument or weakens the same?

Thanks,

Neeti.
_________________

The key to the question is to understand what part of the argument is the 'criticism'.
'Societies are extremely varied' is the only critic part. Rest all are premises. Answer A

If one considers the 'any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies' as the criticism. He/She may go towards B. Incorrect. Tone/Construction is important to understand such questions.

Hi Gmatninja / Gmatninja2,
Can you please explain conclusion and argument structure?
In second sentence, it says F societies are different and in last sentence,
author suggests that ancient F society are larger contacts on modern F society.
Am bit stumped with language of stimuli if you could clarify.
WR,
Arpit.
_________________

The conclusion is that the strategy of studying modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors has a flaw -- and the flaw is that forager societies are extremely varied. Why is this a flaw?

• If some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in order to learn about ancient foragers, this implies that those anthropologists believe that what is true of modern-day foragers is generally true of ancient foragers.
• But what if forager societies are extremely varied? This might suggest that even if two groups are both forager societies, those groups might not actually share common characteristics.
• This, in turn, calls into question the anthropologists' belief that what is true of one group of foragers is generally true of another group of foragers.

Choice (A) reassures us that, even if forager societies are extremely varied, they are still likely to share a number of important features. This suggests that we can learn about ancient foragers by studying modern foragers, even if those two groups have many differences. Thus, the flaw presented in the conclusion is not actually a flaw, and the criticism is not valid.

I hope this helps!
_________________

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?

(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do NOT draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have NOT had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.

GMATNinja, Could you help to explain why (D) and (E) are incorrect?
_________________

First, refer to my last post to help understand the passage.

The argument criticizes the strategy employed by some anthropologists. It makes no difference how many anthropologists use that strategy. Choice (D) does not weaken the criticism.


The argument is that modern-day forager societies and ancient forager societies are so different that anthropologists cannot learn about one by studying the other. This statement strengthens that criticism by stressing that modern-day forager societies--even those that have not had significant contact with modern societies--are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
_________________

SOME AP's study m-day society of foragers to learn about our ancient ancestors.
FLAW is forager societies are extremely varied.
Forager society AP's are familiar with has had sig. contact with modern non forager societies. (The author thinks this has changed the characteristics of our hunter ancestors, and there would be no commonality between them in the past, and them now)

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?


I like this option. This tells me that there are a NUMBER of important features that are common in all forager societies, and these would help AP's study modern day forager societies to figure out the evolution, etc. Keep!


The flaw in the argument is that forager societies are extremely varied, and this statement doesn't help me in anyway to weaken or strengthen the argument.
OUT!



Ok, and how's this helping? It's not. OUT!



Many might not draw inferences, but some do as stated in the passage i.e. SOME AP's study modern day forager societies to learn more about ancient forager societies. OUT!



This is telling me that modern-day forager societies that haven't had significant contact with modern societies are different from ancient forager societies. Hmm.. so basically even with little to no contact with modern societies, the forager societies now are different than before => modern societies have had little impact on the evolution of some modern forager societies.

One-on-One fight between A & E
A tells me that there are important characteristics common in all forager societies ; This commonality would be good to study to learn more about our ancestors.
E tells me that modern societies have basically had negligible impact on some modern forager societies, but I really don't see how this helps me weaken the criticism as it's talking about a subset of modern day forager societies.

A is the answer for me and it's 4 am, so I hope I'm right.
If it's not, then I'm complete off on this CR question
_________________

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?

(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies. CORRECT

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.

Premise 1: Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers.
Premise 2: A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied.

Conclusion : Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.

The basic flaw that the anthropologist cite is that these modern forager society has had considerable contact with non forager societies.Therefore they will not help in knowing ancient forager societies.
If this is indeed true then the characteristics of the forager societies will not remain pure and these societies will take some things from non foragers societies.

A is the only option which casts doubt on the reasoning of the anthropologist.

It says that that all forager societies have unique features thus this will help determine characteristics of ancient forager societies , because even after it has come into contact with modern non forager societies,forager societies will keep their uniqueness.

Argument: Anthropologists study modern-day forager societies to learn about ancient foragers. But modern-day forager societies are varied and have had considerable contact with non-forager societies.

Prethinking
Assumptions for argument to hold: The variance in modern-day forager societies does not allow significant inferences to be drawn about the ancient foragers.
Possible weakener: Despite the variation, enough common things exist between these societies.
We need to weaken the argument. That is we are looking for a choice that says despite the variance, it still makes sense to study forager societies.

(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.
CORRECT. SO it still makes sense to study them. In line with our pre-thinking.

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
That does not provide any reason why the anthropologists should study them. Does not weaken the argument

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
Okay so what? Does it make sense to study despite the overlap

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
That's all the more saying that there is no use studying modern-day forager societies. If anything, it strengthens the conclusion

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.
We are talking about studying modern-day forager societies that HAVE had significant contact with modern societies

I hope the explanation helps
_________________

some questions have option choices that seem fine at the first glance. This question is an example.
Clearly, only A is not out of scope; nevertheless, if a test taker does not practice daily, he or she hardly recognizes that all other 4 options are out of scope.

GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma



Had this been a bold face question: I understood the main conclusion of the argument is:
A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied.

What is the strategy:
Strategy used by some anthropologists to study modern-day societies of foragers ; the study in turn shall help them learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers.

I would like to know the context of the last sentence in the relationship to main conclusion.
_________________