There is evidence to suggest that our cave–dwelling ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassin...
ttaylor1207November 21, 2019
Not A?
Hey, I'm just a little confused why answer A wouldn't weaken the argument. If most of them aren't polished then wouldn't that provide just as much doubt about there aesthetic sense as the flints being used for other chores? Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The issue with (A) is that it does not weaken the evidence cited in support of the conclusion. Even though most of the flints are not polished , it can still be true that many of them are polished. Many is equivalent to "some" for logical purposes, meaning we cannot infer the exact number, which leaves open the possibility that "most" - 50.01% are not polished, and many - 49.99% are polished. Just on the basis of this evidence alone, the conclusion that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense could still be true, we cannot assume that the proportion of polished vs unpolished flints is determinative of the aesthetic sense. (D) on the other hand provides an alternative explanation for polished flints, pointing out that many flints were polished because it was useful for other chores not because that made them more aesthetically pleasing.
