Critical Reasoning

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

IMO: D

IMO B
D talks of dexterity and scientist doesnt put dexterity of with into question he calls the use of free hands into his consideration.

You are trying to connect those not standing upright to sophisticated tools. B does this. While D may say they could build better tools, that is relative and we are just looking for evidence that it happened.

Jim

IMO: B. What is the OA?

Regards

Jim@StratusPrep wrote:You are trying to connect those not standing upright to sophisticated tools. B does this. While D may say they could build better tools, that is relative and we are just looking for evidence that it happened.

Jim

Thank you for your reply. I wish you to express your process of thinking to do this question.
Normally, for Weakening question, we find an assumption and prephrase an new information which cast doubt on this assumption and look for similar or most similar information in the answer choices. How do you do with this question. Some weakeners do not relate to any assumption because they attack the conclusion directly. In thic case we choose the answer choice which attack the conclusion directly. Which way do you do with this question? pls, help us .

I repost to tick the box of reply notification.

I too will choose B.

Gmatkiss, please confirm the answer and also provide the source.

IMO B

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.


conclusion:
stood upright first and then made adv tools

prethinking:
Weaken type question. to weaken the conclusion the correct AO will provide evidence that
1. humans made adv tools and then stood upright
2. they made adv tools before they stood upright


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. speak about animals and about basic tools. Wrong

B) Advanced hunting weapons have been discovered among the artifacts belonging to prehistoric human ancestors who did not stand upright. Correct. consistent with our pre-thinking point 2.

C) Many prehistoric human ancestors who stood upright had no sophisticated tools. addresses a small section of prehistoric human. Not a general statement.

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. This one attacks the premise but does not weaken the conclusion

E) Many of the earliest sophisticated tools did not require their users to be able to stand upright . Not relevant to conclusion