Orangutan, a species of Pondigae, is an ape with long reddish hair that comes from Borneo and Sumatra and is able to walk upright in trees by using two arms to keep balance. Since the ape, human, and other primates have the same ancestors called Ampipithecus, we can reach the conclusion that, instead of the past hypothesis that humans learned how to walk upright in grassland, they were able to walk upright long before they arrived in grassland.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Except for orangutan and human, other primates cannot walk upright in trees until today.
B. Walking upright in trees needs outstanding balance ability and also needs forest as habitat and settlement for both orangutan and human
C.Grassland is not an absolutely treeless environment so that primates can settle on trees in grassland
D. The walking speed of human is faster than that of other primates except the orangutan
E. There is no existing evidence to demonstrate that humans are able to walk upright in trees.
I picked E , cuz I believe that the conclusion is the last sentence, "humans learned how to walk upright in grassland......before they arrived in grassland". Therefore, the best way to weaken the argument is to reject the fact.
OA:C
However, the OA suggests a counter-example. The counter example used here, I think, does not work because the stimulus did not mention all the primates can walk in the tree but simply suggests that humans can walk in trees...
I am a bit confused and I would really appreciate some help, thank you!!
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Except for orangutan and human, other primates cannot walk upright in trees until today.
B. Walking upright in trees needs outstanding balance ability and also needs forest as habitat and settlement for both orangutan and human
C.Grassland is not an absolutely treeless environment so that primates can settle on trees in grassland
D. The walking speed of human is faster than that of other primates except the orangutan
E. There is no existing evidence to demonstrate that humans are able to walk upright in trees.
I picked E , cuz I believe that the conclusion is the last sentence, "humans learned how to walk upright in grassland......before they arrived in grassland". Therefore, the best way to weaken the argument is to reject the fact.
OA:C
However, the OA suggests a counter-example. The counter example used here, I think, does not work because the stimulus did not mention all the primates can walk in the tree but simply suggests that humans can walk in trees...
I am a bit confused and I would really appreciate some help, thank you!!
lets look at the argument here: all the premises and the conclusion
