- Posts: 687
- Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Let's break down the stimulus...risktaker wrote:Can someone explain why A is more right than B? I feel like B is a stronger answer. Also, i felt that an answer that has "material found so far" is bad because there could always be other ones found. Can someone suggest how to approach this question? Thanks.
We have a certain puzzling situation that we want to explain. It was believed previously that Clovis points were invented in North America. We have now found Clovis points in Siberia. We know that paleohumans came from Siberia to North America and that, due to the covering of the Bering land bridge, travel back to Siberia wasn't easy (beginning at some unstated point in the chronology). So, the archeologist suggests, the Clovis was probably not invented in North America.
A -- If we know that the Clovis points found in Siberia were older than those in North America then that discovery offers additional evidence that they were not created in North America (it seems pretty unlikely that something was invented, then the first products were brought to a different continent). You're right that there may be older, undiscovered ones. Remember, though, the question on this particular item is "which of the following would most strengthen?" We, therefore, don't need an answer that absolutely proves the theory--just one that adds support, as this information certainly does.
B -- On first glance this answer does seem tempting. Remember, though, that we have found Clovis points in both North America and Siberia. If the land bridge disappeared before the first Clovis point was made, I guess the only explanation would be that the Clovis points were independently invented in North America and Siberia--and then B does nothing to resolve the issue of where they were first invented. Actually, I would argue that B would weaken the theory since it would indicate that the Clovis points were invented in BOTH North America and Siberia. (This answer, btw, also has the "found do date" component that concerned you about A)
C -- Irrelevant
D -- Again, not relevant
E -- This information would significantly weaken the theory since humans could have brought back the Clovis points or the knowledge of how to make them.
Hope that helps.
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:06 pm
A) We've found clovis points in Siberia. In fact, the clovis points in Siberia that we found were the oldest of ANY clovis points ever found. That doesn't prove that they were invented in Siberia, but it sure does suggest it support the idea. "Where was the wheel invented, Xistan or Yistan? I'm not sure, but the oldest wheels ever found were from Xistan, so.. probably there."
B) The land bridge a long time ago, before any of the clovis points we've found have been made. However, does that mean that there was no way to get back and forth between Siberia and North America? I don't see why they couldn't take a boat. Either way, you've got some clovis points in Siberia, some in North America, we don't know which ones are older or where they were invented, so it doesn't strengthen the idea that they were invented in Siberia rather than N. America.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Already a member? Login
Growing firm seeks Senior Level Tax Attorney. Qualified candidates possess strong knowledge of tax laws and... read more
Growing firm seeks Entry Level Tax Attorney. Qualified candidates possess strong knowledge of tax laws and ... read more
Ackerman & Falcon, a plaintiff’s Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation firm, is seeking a new Associat... read more