jya300 wrote:PT 63, Section 1, #19
At first it seemed like there was no good answer and I ended up guessing between (A) and (C).
It'd be great if you can explain the answer, and maybe the stimulus.
Alright, so here's how my argument breaks down:
Some people - Homo sapiens ancestors got down and dirty with Neanderthals.
(Whenever I have something that was formerly believed, I'm expecting the author to dispute it).
Premise: DNA of modern humans (e.g. me and you) is very different than Neanderthal DNA according to testing.
Conclusion: Homo sapiens ancestors didn't get down and dirty with Neanderthals.
So my gap is pretty obvious here - I don't know how similar DNA has to be in order to prove that my ancestors did the horizontal tango with Neanderthals. According to this, the DNA was very different. For all I know, sharing any similarities might be enough to let me know that my ancestors did the nasty in the past-y.
So my flaw is that I'm equivocating between not being related (i.e. not having interbreeding) and having dissimilar DNA. I need an answer that says amount of similarity in the DNA plays some role in making this determination.
A doesn't do that. In fact, A doesn't hurt my argument at all. The argument's concluding that Homo sapiens ancestors didn't make it with Neanderthals. A tells me they were around at the same time. Well, that makes it infinitely more
likely that they did do it, as you can't have sex with an extinct species (that was the original point of Jurassic Park, but it was deemed unsuitable for young audiences).
And my test is to negate the answer - here, it would say, "No Neanderthals lived at the same time and in the same place..." That strengthens my argument (in fact, it's a sufficient assumption). When I negate an answer and it proves my argument, that's not a necessary assumption.
C, in the most convoluted way possible, tells me what I need to know. It's telling me that Homo sapiens ancestors DNA doesn't look more like Neanderthal DNA than it does modern human DNA. In short, it's as close or closer to us as it is to Neanderthal DNA. I need to assume this because otherwise there's no reason to think that similarities in DNA has anything to do with interbreeding - in short, I need to know we look like Homo sapiens ancestors DNA-wise before I can say that not being similar to Neanderthals rules them out as being in our DNA-line.
And with that, I'm out of euphemisms for sex.
PT 63, Section 3, #14
Can you explain why (A) doesn't work in this problem, and how it differs from (B)?
I picked (A) because it seemed to specifically target the council members having "no evidence," but apparently this was a wrong approach.
You're misreading A slightly (which is normal, as it's written to be confusing).
The argument is essentially this:
We've got two sides to this fight - put the municipal emergency shelter in the abandoned shoe factory or the courthouse (seems like a no-brainer to me). Those who want to put it in the courthouse have given no evidence that it's the better site.
Therefore, the shoe factory is better.
Two problems here:
1) Just because I don't have any evidence for something doesn't mean it's wrong - just because I have no evidence it's better doesn't mean it isn't better
2) I have no evidence for my own view, making me just as bad as the other side.
If I look at A, it says that the lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct. Well, the author thinks that the correct view is to put it in the shoe factory. However, he doesn't say this is because there's no evidence the shoe factory is bad (which would be lack of evidence against his view). He says we should do it because there is no evidence that the other option is better. For this to be the correct answer, it would have to read almost the opposite - "asserting that a lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is incorrect."
And that's what B says - he accepts a claim (the shoe factory is a better site) because the advocates (the council members) of an opposing claim (put it in the courthouse) have not adequately defended their view (there is no evidence it's better).
PT 63, Section 4, #21
I had hard time understanding this passage, and this question really threw me off.. Can you explain why (A) is true, where it's supported and why (C) is not?
For A - lines 42-44 ("First, at or...crest."). This sentence tells me that the rocks are young by the crest, and old away from the crest. Since it's called the 'mid-ocean ridge', it must be the case that it's in the middle of the ocean. Therefore, the stuff farthest away from the crest (which, by definition, is the places by the continent, since that's as far away as you can get from the middle of the ocean) is the oldest.
For C - I have no idea how likely compass readings are to become distorted on land. Without knowing that, and without a statement saying, "Compass readings are most likely to be distorted at sea.", I can't pick C.