Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees, disagree over the interpretation of certain footprints that were left am...
JeromeJune 24, 2020
What matters more, support or weakening of one party?
In this question we're asked what weakened Dr. Tyson's conclusion; however, answer (B) has the alternative explanation that "certain species of bears had feet very like human feet ...", which I interpreted as same feet but different creature therefore not human.
The other answer discussions express how the answer (B) states " ... except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the innermost toe was the smallest toe.", supporting Dr. Rees's conclusion.
In this question, and other weaken questions in general, are we to weaken by proving that party's conclusion is incorrect in the case of an alternate cause; or are we to support - strengthen - the conclusion of the opposing party to weaken?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
As you noted, this question asks you to pick the answer choice which most weakens Dr. Tyson's conclusion. You asked whether, in weaken questions, you are supposed to attack the conclusion or provide support to another conclusion. Unfortunately, you can do either.
Here, Answer (B) is correct because it successfully undermines Tyson's theory by providing an alternative theory. Tyson believes the cross-stepping footprints were from hominids because they have a squarish heel and a big toe next to another toe. BUT, this answer choice tells us that there are bears with human-like feet with the big toe and little toe reversed. This tells us that these prints could have been made by a non-cross stepping bear.
Answer (C) is incorrect because it does not necessarily weaken Tyson's conclusion. Tyson could easily say that this person was walking in a cross-stepping manner just for fun, while the person at site M was walking normally. Tyson's rationale does not discuss the cross-stepping, just the shape of the feet, so it can't be undermined by showing other humans did not cross-step. In fact, the idea that contemporaneous human footprints were found a mile away may actually support Tyson's theory as it tells us that humans were in the area
