4 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 7331
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm
roballen wrote:Can someone please explain the following questions...
Section 1: #'s 18 & 20
A - This is the answer because the problems are being ignored.
B - This isn't the answer because the stimulus doesn't tell us the negative consequences are outweighed by the positive.
C - LOL no
D - LOL no
E - LOL no
A: - If they ate land animals when they arrived, it would be consistent with the stimulus and weakens the argument. "Current diets". They didn't paint while making the journey eating sea animals. They painted 'Once on the Island'.
B: - Consistent with stimulus and weakens. If some caves were destroyed, it's possible the paintings reflected their diet but the sea animal paintings were destroyed.
C: - This does nothing to the argument. The argument is that the paintings don't represent what was eaten. That's why it's correct.
D: - This weakens the argument because it suggests that these people were big meat eaters and thus land animals would be a significant part of their diet.
E: - This weakens. I think it's clear.
roballen wrote:Section 3: #'s 18 & 21
18: - The flaw is assuming that a phenomenon has no negative consequences simply because it has some good consequences. B reflects this clearly. Let me know if you need more than this.
Wow. I really can't explain this one because I'm bad at mapping. The best I can say is that A is the only answer that has the other half of the conclusion that first appeared in the conclusion.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean and 4 guests