Top Law Schools

I had huge troubles when actually solving the question timed and am still having trouble going over the question afterwards. The overt disagreement between the two paleontologists is that Dr.Tyson believes the footprints are of early hominids while Dr. Rees does not think so. Of course, there were no answer choices that fit this. After that, I started to force the answer choices to be understood as disagreement and came up with answer choice B. Maybe Dr.Tyson is able to distinguish hominids footprints amongst others while Dr.Rees does not think that is possible. Clearly, this is wrong, but I cannot really say why this is wrong. As for the correct answer choice A, I 'm really lost as to how this could be an answer. Where did the "relative" part came from as well as the "various aspects"? If the "various aspects" part is implying the interpretation of certain footprints among other footprints, I'd be perplexed....

As for question 8, since the conclusion of Dr.Tyson was that this footprints were of hominids, thinking that these may not be of hominids is a valid way to solve this question? This would directly lead to answer choice B, which states that certain footprints of bears look like human feet.

fire_fried_rice wrote:After that, I started to force the answer choices to be understood as disagreement and came up with answer choice B. Maybe Dr.Tyson is able to distinguish hominids footprints amongst others while Dr.Rees does not think that is possible. Clearly, this is wrong, but I cannot really say why this is wrong.

Answer choice B cannot be correct, because Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees agree that hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints.

What evidence does Dr. Rees have for her conclusion that the footprints are not hominid footprints? The footprints themselves. (Note the language in the stimulus: "However, since the footprints indicate...") If Dr. Rees truly believed that hominid footprints were indistinguishable from other footprints, she would have no basis for her conclusion.

fire_fried_rice wrote:As for the correct answer choice A, I 'm really lost as to how this could be an answer. Where did the "relative" part came from as well as the "various aspects"? If the "various aspects" part is implying the interpretation of certain footprints among other footprints, I'd be perplexed....

What is the "evidence" that the answer choice refers to? As we said above -- the footprints themselves. So "various aspects of the evidence" must refer to various aspects of the footprints.

What aspects of the footprints does the stimulus describe? We only know that know that the footprints have "human characteristics" such as "a squarish heel and a big toe immediately adjacent to the next toe," and that if the footprints are hominid footprints, the hominids would have had to walk in a cross-stepping manner. Don't be fooled here -- the evidence of the cross-stepping walk is not an interpretation. The stimulus presents it as a fact.

Dr. Tyson is persuaded by the heel and toe placement; Dr. Rees is persuaded by the cross-stepping walk. Thus, the two disagree about the relative significance of these various aspects of the evidence.

fire_fried_rice wrote:As for question 8, since the conclusion of Dr.Tyson was that this footprints were of hominids, thinking that these may not be of hominids is a valid way to solve this question? This would directly lead to answer choice B, which states that certain footprints of bears look like human feet.

Exactly right. This evidence strongly suggests that the footprints are not those of hominids, but those of bears. We know that if the footprint came from a hominid, the hominid would have had an unexpected cross-stepping walk. But the evidence of toe size suggests that if the footprint came from a bear, the bear would not have this unexpected walking pattern. This inference, combined with the fact that the bears "had feet very like human feet" makes it much more plausible that the footprint came from a bear.

thanks for the explanation! I can now clearly see where I got the problem wrong and where I was getting confused. One thing that concerns me is that I considered the cross-stepping manner as an interpretation. Of course, the "various aspects" can still be understood with the human characteristics, but I feel that not interpreting the cross step is also an important part of using it as an evidence for "various aspects". What can I take away from here? Should I try to "boost" my understanding of the stimulus? What am I missing here?