Critical Reasoning

Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon that became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age was recently discovered. It contains a human-made projectile dissimilar to any found in that part of Eurasia closest to North America. Thus, since Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age, the first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the archaeologist's argument?
(A) The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age.
(B) The people who occupied the Eurasian area closest to North America remained nomadic throughout the Ice Age.
(C) The skeleton of a bear from the same place and time as the mastodon skeleton contains a similar projectile.
(D) Other North American artifacts from the peak of the Ice Age are similar to ones from the same time found in more distant parts of Eurasia.
(E) Climatic conditions in North America just before the Ice Age were more conducive to human habitation than were those in the part of Eurasia closest to North America at that time.

A

Hi Experts,

I got his question incorrect. As per my reasoning, the answer should be E. Can you please point out where am I going wrong.

Understanding of passage:

P 1: Skeleton extinct at the peak of ice age discovered
P 2: Thus contains a human-made projectile dissimilar to any found in that part of Eurasia closest to North America
P 3: Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age i.e till the peak of ice age

Conclusion: first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia.

To weaken the argument I need to prove that the first settlers did come from the closeby Eurasia instead of a more distant part

A. This proves that they did not come from Eurasia at all. So, isn't this opposite. Isn't this OFS

E. This suggests that the Eurasians closer to NA had more reasons to settle in NA

Please suggest the following:
1. Is my negated statement correct. After all the opposite of came from farther aurasia will be came from nearer Eurasia?
2. How is A correct here?

The argument states this -

Eurasians settled in NA just before peak of Ice Age + Projectile dissimilar to any found in part of Eurasia closest to NA (North America) --> 1st settlers came from distant parts of Eurasia.

Immediately we see that there is a problem with the argument. What if the settlers came from some other place? This can also explain the dissimilarity of the projectile to those found in parts of Eurasia closest to NA.

To weaken, you have to prove that the conclusion "1st settlers came from distant parts of Eurasia" is not necessarily correct. the implication can either be they came from parts of Eurasia closest to NA or from somewhere else altogether.

A - correct answer. Since the projectile is dissimilar to any that were used in Eurasia, this option suggests that the people who used the projectile did not come from Eurasia.

B - does not weaken the argument. Does not mean that distant parts of Eurasia were inhabited by the same people. It is entirely possible that they remained nomadic within the regions closest to North America.

C - does not weaken the argument that 1st human settlers came from distant parts of Eurasia.

D - strengthens the argument. Suggests that 1st human settlers in NA probably came from distant parts of Eurasia.

E - does not mean that people from those parts of Eurasia settled in North America just before the peak of Ice Age. Otherwise the projectile discovered would be similar to the ones in those parts of Eurasia at the peak of the Ice age.

Hi Crack verbal,

Thank you for the reply.

What is the meaning of the below -

Thus, since Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age?

1. Does this mean that they did not settle before the peak of Ice age?
2. They did settle before the peak of Ice age.

And if they did settle then isn't it illogical to say that the projectile came from somewhere else? Because then the projectile could have been made by them?

Please suggest.