Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardGeneral Method of Reasoning

Anthropologist: Many researchers contend that the unusual wear patterns on the teeth of the extinct hominid *Paranthropus boisei* indicate a diet consisting exclusively of hard foods, such as nuts and seeds. However, extant primates like the sootey mangabey exhibit nearly identical dental wear patterns, yet their diet consists primarily of soft fruits, with hard foods eaten only during periods of scarcity. Thus, the wear patterns on *P. boisei* teeth do not definitively prove a diet restricted to hard foods.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the anthropologist's argument?

  1. using an analogous case to establish that a particular piece of evidence is insufficient to guarantee the truth of a specific hypothesisAnswer
  2. B
    refuting a general claim by demonstrating that a subsidiary conclusion derived from that claim contradicts established facts
  3. C
    rejecting a conclusion by attacking the factual accuracy of the contextual background information rather than the premises that support the conclusion
  4. D
    arguing that a hypothesis is flawed because it incorrectly infers a causal relationship from a mere correlation
  5. E
    invalidating a generalization by pointing out that a characteristic shared by individual parts of a group does not necessarily apply to the whole

Answer

The argument operates by using an analogous case to establish that a particular piece of evidence is insufficient to guarantee the truth of a specific hypothesis.
The correct answer accurately maps the abstract components to the concrete details of the stimulus. The 'analogous case' refers to the sootey mangabey. The 'particular piece of evidence' is the dental wear patterns. The 'specific hypothesis' is the claim that P. boisei had a diet consisting exclusively of hard foods. By showing that the mangabey has identical wear patterns but a different diet, the anthropologist establishes that the wear patterns are 'insufficient to guarantee the truth' of the hard-food hypothesis.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing view and the evidence it relies upon.
The researchers hypothesize that P. boisei ate only hard foods, basing this on the evidence of unusual dental wear patterns.
Understanding the specific claim being challenged is necessary to evaluate how the author structures their attack.
2
Analyze the new evidence introduced by the author.
The author introduces the sootey mangabey, an extant primate with similar wear patterns but a diet consisting mostly of soft fruits.
This step determines the structural role of the new information: it serves as an analogy to a related phenomenon.
3
Determine how the author's evidence impacts the opposing view.
The mangabey example demonstrates that these specific wear patterns can exist without an exclusively hard-food diet, meaning the researchers' evidence does not definitively prove their hypothesis.
This captures the logical mechanism and ultimate goal of the argument.
4
Abstract the logical structure and match it to the options.
The author uses an analogous case (the mangabey) to show that evidence (wear patterns) is insufficient to guarantee a hypothesis (exclusive hard-food diet).
Method of reasoning questions require translating the concrete elements of the argument into abstract, structural descriptions.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Rate this question

Topics

General Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic