Critical Reasoning

Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the anthropologists' strategy?
(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.
(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life.
(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society.
(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.
(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies.

The correct ans is A but I was thinking E or D were correct. I've read the answer in OG but I still don't really understand it. Can one of the experts please explain it to me?

Ans should be A

premise 1: Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers

premise 2: A flaw strategy due to any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern nonforager societies.

Weeken: Here you have to prove that study of foragers is indeed usefull
A: All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

So A says that there is still a lot of scope to learn in modern day forager society.. as those common features can be studied

D: Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies.-> This is not relevant.. as it negates the premises... Never try to negate premises

E: Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies. -> This strengthens the argument instead of weekening it... And states that it is realy useless to study about them...

(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

This statement is talking about all the ancient (historical forage societies). This is not the best option, but is there any better one? No.

The comparison should be actually between ancient(Historical) Vs modern forage societies, but that ha snot happened here.
Remember the present day societies are not the part of historical societies. This statement/generalization or assumption may or may not be true for the current forage societies. Not a best option at all.

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life. [OFS]

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society. [OFS, Non Nonsensical]

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies. [This is a Googly]

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies. [Indirectly it is been said here that Modern Day forager societies are significantly different from ancient ones.] This actually strengthen the conclusion (=A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied).

richachampion wrote:(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

This statement is talking about all the ancient (historical forage societies). This is not the best option, but is there any better one? No.

The comparison should be actually between ancient(Historical) Vs modern forage societies, but that ha snot happened here.
Remember the present day societies are not the part of historical societies. This statement/generalization or assumption may or may not be true for the current forage societies. Not a best option at all.

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life. [OFS]

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society. [OFS, Non Nonsensical]

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies. [This is a Googly]

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies. [Indirectly it is been said here that Modern Day forager societies are significantly different from ancient ones.] This actually strengthen the conclusion (=A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied).

I received a PM asking me to comment on this one.

The anthropologists' strategy is to learn about ancient forager societies by studying current ones. The criticism is that studying these modern forager societies will have limited value because the modern forager societies have been contaminated, so to speak, by their interaction with non-foragers. The implication is that the modern societies won't be able to teach us much about ancient ones. We want to weaken this criticism and show that there is still value in studying modern forager societies. If A is true, then there will still be value in studying these societies as they have elements in common with ancient forager societies, so this would weaken the criticism.

D is irrelevant. The fact that there are many anthropologists who don't draw inferences about ancient societies doesn't tell us anything about the merit of the work of the anthropologists who do draw these inferences.

And E can either be viewed as a strengthener (weakening the connection between ancient and modern societies in general) or as out of scope (it doesn't shed any light on whether the criticism regarding contaminated modern societies is valid or not.)

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

richachampion wrote:(A) All forager societies throughout history have had a number of important features in common that are absent from other types of societies.

This statement is talking about all the ancient (historical forage societies). This is not the best option, but is there any better one? No.

The comparison should be actually between ancient(Historical) Vs modern forage societies, but that ha snot happened here.
Remember the present day societies are not the part of historical societies. This statement/generalization or assumption may or may not be true for the current forage societies. Not a best option at all.

(B) Most ancient forager societies either dissolved or made a transition to another way of life. [OFS]

(C) All anthropologists study one kind or another of modern-day society. [OFS, Non Nonsensical]

(D) Many anthropologists who study modern-day forager societies do not draw inferences about ancient societies on the basis of their studies. [This is a Googly]

(E) Even those modern-day forager societies that have not had significant contact with modern societies are importantly different from ancient forager societies. [Indirectly it is been said here that Modern Day forager societies are significantly different from ancient ones.] This actually strengthen the conclusion (=A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied).

I received a PM asking me to comment on this one.

The anthropologists' strategy is to learn about ancient forager societies by studying current ones. The criticism is that studying these modern forager societies will have limited value because the modern forager societies have been contaminated, so to speak, by their interaction with non-foragers. The implication is that the modern societies won't be able to teach us much about ancient ones. We want to weaken this criticism and show that there is still value in studying modern forager societies. If A is true, then there will still be value in studying these societies as they have elements in common with ancient forager societies, so this would weaken the criticism.

D is irrelevant. The fact that there are many anthropologists who don't draw inferences about ancient societies doesn't tell us anything about the merit of the work of the anthropologists who do draw these inferences.

And E can either be viewed as a strengthener (weakening the connection between ancient and modern societies in general) or as out of scope (it doesn't shed any light on whether the criticism regarding contaminated modern societies is valid or not.)

Thanks David Sir that means my analysis was also right.