Patterson: Bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic are the earliest evidence for music. Thus it is likely that mu...

Grace on December 15 at 09:53PM

Could someone please explain?

Thank you.

3 Replies

Katherine on December 17 at 03:01AM

Hi @GLEE, happy to help. Patterson argues that because bone flutes dating to the Upper Paleolithic period are the earliest evidence of music, music must have arisen during this period.

Garza replies that the Upper Paleolithic period is exceptional for their intensive use of bone. This suggests that cultures from other periods used different materials. He goes on to say that bone survives well in archeological contexts. Wood, which is commonly used for musical instruments, does not. Therefore, Garza raises the possibility that a culture from an earlier period used wood to make musical instruments, but these instruments did not survive to be discovered by archeologists.

Patterson is concluding that music arose during the Upper Paleolithic period because that is earliest period from which archeologists have found evidence of musical instruments. Garza argues that Patterson must consider a larger body of evidence, such as the possibility that earlier cultures made instruments of wood, before concluding that music arose during the Upper Paleolithic period. Therefore, Answer A is correct.

Answer C is incorrect because Garza does not raise a counterexample to Patteron’s conclusion. Although, Garza suggests that earlier cultures may have made musical instruments of wood, he does not present an example of such a culture. Instead, he argues that Patteron makes his conclusion by appealing to an insufficient body of evidence.

on August 18 at 01:41AM

Can someone explain why E is incorrect? Thanks!

Ravi on August 18 at 08:24PM

@Minerva,

Let's look at (E).

(E) says, "using Patterson’s evidence to draw a conclusion
inconsistent with the conclusion drawn in Patterson’s argument"

The problem with (E) is that Garza never draws a conclusion in his
statement. Additionally, it's possible that Garza ultimately agrees
with Patterson's conclusion. Garza is simply pointing out the
insufficiency of the evidence that Patterson has provided. Thus, we
can get rid of (E).

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!