The argument tells us that the first entomologist concluded that the ants were bringing food to their neighbors, and further research determined that the ants were emptying their dumping site. Thus, the early ethimologist was wrong. This conclusion requires an assumption that the subsequent research is inconsistent with the initial finding, i.e. bringing food and emptying the dumping site are mutually exclusive activities. (C) correctly expresses this assumption. If (C) is false, and a dumping site contains particles that could be used as food then it is possible that the ant activity involved both - bringing the food and emptying the dumping site, and in this scenario, we could not conclude that the first entomologist is wrong.
(D) has no impact on the validity of the argument. The argument rejects the finding that the ants were bringing food to their neighbors, whereas (D) demonstrates that the neighbors never took the particles/ food. The first entomologist never argued that the neighbors actually made use of the particles, so this assumption is irrelevant.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
JesswAugust 12, 2020
Hi, I still don't fully grasp as to how it is not D, but C.
Emil-KunkinSeptember 18, 2022
Hi,
We are being asked what makes the argument valid. If it is true that the ants never took the particles themselves, how does that prove the argument is correct? This does not eliminate any kind of altruism, or the possibility that this is food- maybe there is some other reason why they do not take them themselves.
