Top Law Schools

This is a strengthen question. The conclusion is that contrary to previous belief, the Clovis point was not invented in North America.

Why? Because groups of paleohumans crossed a now not-standing bridge from Siberia to North America. And archaeologists discovered a bunch of clovis points in Siberia.

I can eliminate (C), (D), and (E), as they do not strengthen the argument.

I know that to strengthen an argument one can state an assumption or rule out an alternative. Also, a strengthen answer choice does not have to make the argument valid of course.

I cannot get rid of B. Sure you can find ways of how it does not necessarily weaken the argument, but you could also find ways in which (A) does not necessarily weaken the argument.

(A) states the ones that have been discovered. Well, maybe they have discovered 5 of the 1,000 available, and the 995 are not as old.

(B) This can strengthen it by ruling out a way in which the clovis points could have been invented in North America and brought back to Siberia. Of course it does not preclude all possible avenues, such as by boat, or such, but this does strengthen it, albeit marginally, by ruling out one such way of transporting it back from North America where it could have been invented.

I started to write a reply to this but then realized you have a valid point about the number discovered in A. I also answered B on this one and didn't quite understand why A was superior...I made up some reason when I was reviewing but you just made me question it some more. I hope someone has an answer.

Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't (B) actually weaken the argument? If the land bridge disappeared before any of the Clovis points were made, then that means the Clovis points had to be made after the paleohumans crossed the bride. The paleohumans left Siberia, crossed the bridge--which no longer exists--and then arrived in North America and if the Bering land bridge disappeared before any of them were made that means that the paleohumans already made their journey to North America without making any Clovis points. Does this make sense? I think the reason (B) might be throwing you off is because you are thinking that they might have created the Clovis points after the bridge disappeared, but it states in the stimulus that they clearly crossed the bridge into North America.

That's what I thought originally but if.B is correct and the clovis points were invented in North America, why would they find clovis points in Siberia?

We must select the answer choice that would "most strengthen" the argument, thus the AC doesn't have to make the argument air tight.


(A) strengthens the argument. If the Clovis points found in Siberia are older than any of the known North American ones, this supports the conclusion that they were not invented in North America. Yes, it's still possible there could be unknown North American Clovis points that would undermine the argument, but that's okay; we're looking for something that would most strengthen the argument, not something that makes the argument perfect.

(B) doesn't affect the argument at all because it relates only to the points in general. The Clovis points might have been invented in North America, and then only used in Siberia after the land bridge disappeared.