Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years

Question

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it. Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces. A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the archaeologist's argument?

(A) In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

(B) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

(C) Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have had to have been brought in from some distance.

(D) There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving meat other than smoking it.

(E) The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to poor periods of hunting.

Source: LSAT

jambagirl88 · Answer

I pick B. If there were no other plants that could be used to produce heat or light, then lichen and grass would've been used for it. Hence, it goes against the conclusion that it was not just used to smoke meat.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

Zarevl · Answer

I doubt with the official answer and the whole question.

Conclusion: Neanderthals 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it.

B) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago - In my opinion it says that there were no better alternatives to the lichen and grass in order to receive heat and light. But the statement doesn't say anything regarding preserve of meat.

I chose D) even though it is not very strong too.

akshata19 · Answer

I am not convinced with the option B 
For me it strengthens the argument 
From B we are sure they used lichen and from argument we know it produces lot of smoke

And conclusion is that they used smoking to preserve

Someone please provide detailed explanation

Thanks in advance

Kudos if you think alike ?

Posted from my mobile device

syedazeem3 · Answer

I choose A. It suggests the burned material that produced more heat than smoke- weakens the argument of preserving meat using smoke.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

strawhat316 · Answer

I think B strengthens the argument more than weakening it. I'm not entirely convinced with the OA either.

naval2272 · Answer

Is it A? It suggests an alternate cause that heat might have been responsible for preservation.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

fireagablast · Answer

The answer is B because it provides an alternative explanation for burning lichen.

imants12 · Answer

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it. Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces. A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the archaeologist's argument?

(A) In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

(B) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

(C) Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have had to have been brought in from some distance.

(D) There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving meat other than smoking it.

(E) The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to poor periods of hunting.

I think the key here is use of 'probably' in the conclusion. Since lichens and grass produced more smoke than light or heat, it was probably used to smoke meat. We need to weaken the conclusion by bringing in alternate basis of evaluating the evidence given in the premises. B does it well by stating that there was no other means of producing heat and light besides lichens and grass, thus weakening the conclusion by attacking the reasoning involved in drawing conclusion that the same was probably used to preserve meat.

Posted from my mobile device

nightblade354 · Answer

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it. Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces. A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire.

P: Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces
P: A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire
C: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it

Because lichen and grass were found in a fireplace, and because they produce a lot of smoke, we therefore conclude that neanderthals used this to smoke meat. Really? Wow, so many assumptions being made (and finding them is exactly what you need to do to strengthen/weaken a question). For example, what if they only had these items are their disposal? Or, what if they used smoke to communicate? These are all valid reasons as to why they would use smoke for non-cooking matters. Because there are so many examples, let's hope the answers provide a good one that helps give an alternative reason.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the archaeologist's argument?

(A) In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke. --  So next to the fireplaces that made a lot of smoke are fireplaces that made less smoke. So if you guessed this, you were probably thinking "One for smoking and one for heat". But all this says is that there are two types of fireplaces. We still have no clue what their uses were. Maybe one was for smoke signals and was for heat; in this scenario, we don't cook meat because we are vegetarian. We cannot make assumptions to force our answer to work!

(B) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago. --  Bingo! Perfect weakening statement. If all they had available was really smoky material, then this complete disproves the evidence that they had a choice. The premise says lichens are smokier than wood, therefore, they smoked meats. But if wood wasn't around, we destroy this idea. 
 
(C) Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have had to have been brought in from some distance. --  OK, so this is saying that because it required to get the lichens, therefore they were used to smoke meat. Again, we are making a huge assumption that they would only go get the lichens if they used them for smoking meat (maybe they needed it for smoke signals). The issue here is that we still don't know usage.

(D) There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving meat other than smoking it. --  OK, so people after our neanderthal group (chronologically speaking) used smoke to preserve meat. Cool! But who cares? This doesn't help prove or disprove anything. It just says the technique was around, but even in this choice we do not know if it was around during our time. Out.

(E) The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to poor periods of hunting. --  OK, so it would have made our neanderthals less vulnerable to certain conditions. But who cares? It can be argued that this *could* strengthen our argument by showing a net benefit to the practice, but does that mean that it was actually used? Maybe we discovered this technique two years ago? This is a borderline strengthener with an assumption, but can't weaken our argument in anyway.

aletheia225 · Answer

LSAT questions are usually flawless, but this question is not. It may have passed experimental muster, but that doesn't mean it doesn't screw over a portion of intelligent test-takers who opt for (D) on perfectly reasonable grounds. That portion is test-takers may be statistically insignificant, but that's beside the point. The test-writer basis for eliminating (D) is that the question references Neanderthals from 60,000 years ago, whereas (D) references Neanderthals from after 60,000 years ago. The problem is that it is unclear on the basis of the question stem whether we are concerned with Neanderthals from 60,000 years ago, or Neanderthals across time for the full measure of their existence. The most plausible rendering of the first sentence is as follows -

1. 'Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago {to give a general idea of when they existed},....'

The test-writer rendering of the first sentence would be -

2. 'Neanderthals living 60,000 years ago...'

The second rendering is far less plausible than the first. A satisfactory way of conveying (2) in the question stem would have been -

'Neanderthals are a human-like species. Neanderthals from 60,000 years ago...'

If we pursue the far more plausible interpretation of the first sentence as laid out above in (1), (D) is correct, because it destroys the conclusion, which is that Neanderthals (i.e., all Neanderthals) were more likely than not to have preserved meat by smoking it. (B) is of course a very strong weakener, and there would never be an incorrect answer that fulfills the question stim criteria so well, but that's not the point.

IanStewart · Answer

I agree with you -- that is not a good reason to eliminate D, and if an official source says it is, that source seems wrong to me. I don't see how the references to "60,000 years ago" in the stem and in D are even relevant to the question. And I'd agree with you that D would be a justifiable answer here (with the caveat I mention below) if the conclusion said "Neanderthals probably  only  preserved meat by smoking it". Without that 'only', though, it doesn't much affect the argument if some Neanderthals may have used a different meat preservation technique, since nothing prevents a large group of people from using several different methods to preserve meat.

All of that said, if D does anything it weakens the conclusion, rather than the argument itself, and we're asked to weaken the argument, so I'd be suspicious of it on those grounds, though I'm not sure if official LSAT questions are careful about preserving that distinction.

Oppenheimer1945 · Answer

KarishmaB  , is B really weakening ? I have a strong opinion that B strengthens the arg

Its_me_aka_ak · Answer

Kindly correct me
My reasoning for eliminating B and pickin c was that
B states that lichen was most efficient from all other ‘plants’ but it must not include woods as they are more sufficient and we dont know that why those people did not choose WOOD over LICHEN.
D on the other hand, says that the people less than 60000 years ago had an alternative so they did not need to smoke. It makes sense as we do not know if they went extinct suddenly at 60000 mark, we just know they lived at that time. 
Hence D is better

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

Archaeologist's argument:

Premises:  
Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces. 
A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire.

Conclusion:  
Neanderthals probably preserved meat by smoking it.

We need to weaken this conclusion i.e. we need to weaken that Ns preserved meat by smoking it. On what basis is the archaeologist concluding that N's smoked their meat? Burnt lichen and grass (things that produce more smoke than heat) have been found in their fires. So he is assuming that they used this fuel to produce a lot of smoke to smoke their meat. He is assuming that had they wanted to cook their meat using high heat, they would have likely used wood kind of fuel that produces more heat. 
So what will weaken the conclusion? If you say that lichen and grass was the only fuel available to them, then you can weaken the Archaeologist's argument. Then you can say that they could have used lichen and grass for cooking etc purposes. They had no other better fuel available.

(A) In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.
 
This seems to suggest that the lichen fireplaces had a specific purpose (other than cooking) and it could very well be smoking meat. Hence it does not weaken the conclusion.

(B) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.
 
This is exactly as per our previous discussion. There was no better fuel available to them. Hence this is the correct answer.

samagra21  - Focus on what the conclusion is. The conclusion is not trying to establish that lichen and grass was used in fireplaces. It is already saying that lichen and grass was used. The conclusion is talking about the purpose of using lichen and grass in fireplaces - that it was used to preserve meat by smoking it. That is what we have to weaken.

(C) Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have had to have been brought in from some distance.

If anything, this supports the archaeologist's argument. Lichen (smoke producer) was brought in from other places. Then there must have been a s specific purpose for it. Hence, it doesn't weaken the Archaeologist's argument.

(D) There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving meat other than smoking it.
 
Irrelevant. Even if some recent Ns (or even Ns of 60k years ago) developed and used some other method for preserving meat, it has no impact on whether they used smoking to preserve meat or not. They could have used many different methods, especially later on. Our question is whether 60K yeas ago Ns smoked their meat to preserve it. 
 
 (E) The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to poor periods of hunting.
 
Doesn't tell us whether they actually did preserve their meat by smoking it.

Answer (B)

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards