GMAT Club Forum
https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/

Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated
https://gmatclub.com/forum/jones-prehistoric-wooden-tools-found-in-south-america-have-been-dated-315018.html
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Sajjad1994 [ 23 Jan 2020, 10:04 ]
Post subject:  Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. Although scientists attribute these tools to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska, this cannot be correct. In order to have reached a site so far south, these peoples must have been migrating southward well before 13,000 years ago. However, no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America.

Smith: Your evidence is inconclusive. Those tools were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas. Wooden tools in soils other than peat bogs usually decompose within only a few years.

Smith responds to Jones by

(A) citing several studies that invalidate Jones’s conclusion
(B) accusing Jones of distorting the scientists’ position
(C) disputing the accuracy of the supporting evidence cited by Jones
(D) showing that Jones’s evidence actually supports the denial of Jones’s conclusion
(E) challenging an implicit assumption in Jones’s argument

LSAT Prep Test 8

Author:  Sajjad1994 [ 04 Feb 2020, 08:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Explanation

We need to find Smith’s method of argument—the way in which she responds to Jones. Well, she says that Jones’ evidence is unconvincing, and points out that Jones has based his argument on the lack of wooden tools dating before 13,000 years ago. Jones has assumed that, because these tools weren’t found, they never existed. Smith blows this apart by pointing out the soil problem, thus attacking Jones’ major assumption. This is best expressed in (E).

(A) Smith doesn’t cite any studies at all in her retort.

(B) Smith doesn’t think that Jones is misrepresenting the scientists’ position; she’s just unconvinced by Jones’ argument.

(C) is a little tricky, because Smith does dispute the accuracy of Jones’ argument, but it’s not the supporting evidence that’s in question—it’s the validity of Jones’ assumption that the tools in question didn’t exist.

(D) says that Smith accuses Jones of a self-contradiction, but if that were the case we’d hear Smith say, “Your evidence proves just the opposite point.”

Answer: E


Hope it helps

Author:  Snezanelle [ 29 Jan 2020, 03:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

I chose D over E and then thought a little about those 2 options.
D seems incorrect because Jones's evidence stated in the way it is written doesn't support the conclusion. Smith elaborates on his evidence by providing additional information and questioning not the evidence itself but the reasoning behind it with the new information.
E: wooden tools in boats are found but wooden tools in soil couldn't be found because they've decomposed.

Author:  bidskamikaze [ 26 Apr 2021, 02:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Sajjad1994 wrote:
Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. Although scientists attribute these tools to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska, this cannot be correct. In order to have reached a site so far south, these peoples must have been migrating southward well before 13,000 years ago. However, no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America.

Smith: Your evidence is inconclusive. Those tools were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas. Wooden tools in soils other than peat bogs usually decompose within only a few years.

Smith responds to Jones by

(A) citing several studies that invalidate Jones’s conclusion
(B) accusing Jones of distorting the scientists’ position
(C) disputing the accuracy of the supporting evidence cited by Jones
(D) showing that Jones’s evidence actually supports the denial of Jones’s conclusion
(E) challenging an implicit assumption in Jones’s argument

LSAT Prep Test 8


i THINK IT'S REALLY BETWEEN C AND E

(C) disputing the accuracy of the supporting evidence cited by Jones
-This may look OK at first glance. But, Smith never doubts the "ACCURACY" of the evidence presented.

(E) challenging an implicit assumption in Jones’s argument
- Implicit Assumption: If no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America, then People could not have crossed into South America.
Challenge: Tools are unlikely to survive after such long time.

E is correct.

Author:  JDLaw [ 26 Sep 2022, 04:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated

Sajjad1994 wrote:
Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. Although scientists attribute these tools to peoples whose ancestors first crossed into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska, this cannot be correct. In order to have reached a site so far south, these peoples must have been migrating southward well before 13,000 years ago. However, no such tools dating to before 13,000 years ago have been found anywhere between Alaska and South America.

Smith: Your evidence is inconclusive. Those tools were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas. Wooden tools in soils other than peat bogs usually decompose within only a few years.

Smith responds to Jones by

(A) citing several studies that invalidate Jones’s conclusion
(B) accusing Jones of distorting the scientists’ position
(C) disputing the accuracy of the supporting evidence cited by Jones
(D) showing that Jones’s evidence actually supports the denial of Jones’s conclusion
(E) challenging an implicit assumption in Jones’s argument

LSAT Prep Test 8



(A) citing several studies that invalidate Jones’s conclusion No studies are cited
(B) accusing Jones of distorting the scientists’ position No accusation and no distortion in statement by Jones
(C) disputing the accuracy of the supporting evidence cited by JonesAccuracy is not questioned at all, Also no evidence sited by Jones
(D) showing that Jones’s evidence actually supports the denial of Jones’s conclusion Such a thing is not done by Smith, no witty quips here
(E) challenging an implicit assumption in Jones’s argumentWell, the argument by jones is nothing but assumption! and Smith does challenge the assumption of tools fossils being present at mentioned places by giving a reason of why that is the case.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/