weakens the argument

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:06 am
Thanked: 6 times

weakens the argument

by gmatnmein2010 » Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:13 pm
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 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.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:19 pm
scientist's argument: Prehistoric human ancestors stood upright prior to the development of sophisticated tools.

What weakens the argument? Sophisticated tools were created before our prehistoric ancestors stood upright.
A) Who cares about many animals ... we only care about our prehistoric ancestors.

B) Correct.

C) Irrelevant.

D) How does this info weaken the scientist's argument? It doesn't.

E) Great ... but that still doesn't weaken the argument that prehistoric ancestors stood upright prior to the development of sophisticated tools.

Answer choice is B.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 11:10 pm
The official answer is B. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Global
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by elias.latour.apex » Mon May 15, 2017 7:35 am
Sure.

The question asks us to "weaken the scientist's argument" so we need to start this out by understanding the scientist's conclusion. It is: "Prehistoric human ancestors ... stood upright first."

Why? Because: Advanced toolmaking requires free use of hands, and standing upright makes this possible.

So the argument assumes that standing upright is the only way to get free use of hands. If this is true, only those prehistoric ancestors who stood upright could have developed tools.

However, answer choice (B) shows that this is not the case. Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright.

Accordingly (B) is the answer choice that best weakens the scientist's conclusion.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622