Q23 - Every human culture has taboos against eating certain

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analyze Argument Structure (Procedure … describe how the argument gets to its conclusion)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It's unwarranted to conclude that taboos originated SOLELY for practical reasons, such as wanting to protect animals we use for labor.
Evidence: It's possible that the (impractical) symbolic reason came first and then people just figured out a practical use for these animals we weren't allowed to eat.

Answer Anticipation:
These questions typically want us to characterize the type of evidence or the type of move (f.e. counterexample, analogy, implications of logic, ruling out alternatives, considering alternative explanation/intepretation, define a term, clarify a distinction).

In this case, I would be expecting something like "the author questions the researchers' interpretation of why there are taboos against eating certain animals by pointing out that a different interpretation could explain both the taboos and the researchers' evidence".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES! This sounds pretty close to our prephrase. The conclusion DOES call an explanation into question ("that conc is unwarranted"), and the alternative explanation is saying observations of taboos against useful animals are compatible with "taboo is used to protect useful animals" or with "taboo started religious, but then people found a way to make taboo animals useful".

(B) Stop reading after "establishes that an explanation is false". The conclusion is only saying "an explanation is unwarranted". That means "unproven / unjustified / poorly supported". It doesn't mean false.

(C) The author isn't saying that her 2nd interpretation is MORE plausible. She's just saying it's plausible. Since multiple interpretations are plausible, the author is allowed to conclude that the researchers' overly confident hypothesis is unwarranted.

(D) "Incompatible" = contradicts. This is not too far off. We could say that the two explanations are incompatible. But the evidence was compatible with both explanations.

(E) Also very close. The author's explanation includes a separate event from the researchers' explanation. So it's not the author saying, "You've got the right ingredients, but the wrong order".

The researchers said: "Useful animal? Let's make it taboo to eat it."
The author said: "Symbolic/religious reason? Let's make this animal taboo. Now that it's taboo, let's make it useful."

The fact that the author thinks there IS a religious reason for the taboo and the researchers do not makes it impossible for the author to just be scrambling the order of the ingredients in the researchers' explanation.

Takeaway/Pattern: Tough answers! It's important to move beyond the overly blunt understanding of "the author disagrees with these researchers". It matters how much he disagrees ("unwarranted", not "false" conclusion). It matters in what way he disagrees ("this alternative explanation would agree with your evidence but contradict your conclusion").

#officialexplanation

[Djjustin818]

Why is C wrong?

I was left with A and C but I didn't pick A because the anthropologist doesn't say the evidence is compatible with an alt. explanation of the phenomenon. He rather gives his own evidence to justify why his conclusion is correct. Could someone explain this to me please?

[matthew.mainen]

The evidence Is that there are universal taboos against eating certain animals and that in many cultures, it is taboo to eat some domesticated animals. From these premises (evidence) some researchers have concluded that the taboos exist solely for practical purposes - the animals are more useful alive then dead. The author says this conclusion is not warranted. In other words, you can't properly derive that conclusion from the evidence. In fact, one could just as easily conclude the opposite: they aren't taboo to eat because they are more useful alive, they've been put use because there is a taboo against eating them.

C is too strong. The author doesn't assert the alternative he presents is better. He just raises the possibility.

[maryadkins]

Yes! Good explanation and discussion.

As for (A), it doesn't say anything about incompatibility. So you're exactly right that the anthropologist doesn't call the other theory incompatible with the evidence ... but neither does (A).

[karlhopland]

Could someone explain why E is wrong? I was between A and E and picked E.

Isn't it true that the anthropologist is saying that these events could have happened in a different order? (Reversed?)

[panamaln91]

Isn't it true that the anthropologist is saying that these events could have happened in a different order? (Reversed?)

The anthropologist isn't saying there's a sequence of events occurring, rather that they "might have arisen for symbolic..." it's basically an alternative explanation.

I think you might have tripped up on the part about "find other uses for those animals," you're making a pretty big inference in thinking that the other uses then became taboo.

[spencercross]

I think you might have tripped up on the part about "find other uses for those animals," you're making a pretty big inference in thinking that the other uses then became taboo.

I think you've mixed something up. In the part you're referring to, the stim says the taboos may have arisen first, so the other uses were then found (nothing about those uses then becoming taboo). So from my reading the anthropologist is saying "Some researchers think animals had practical uses and were worth more alive than dead, so it became taboo to eat them, but I think it's possible that it became taboo to eat them because of some other (e.g., symbolic) reasons, so other more practical uses were found for the animals." Which sounds to me like E. I know I'm wrong, but I still don't see why.

[nickek]

I too was confused between A and E, but I could see where E probably fails: the first one talks about labour uses, while the second talks about spiritual uses. So "those events" are different in each hypothesis.

[judaydaday]

I think you might have tripped up on the part about "find other uses for those animals," you're making a pretty big inference in thinking that the other uses then became taboo.

I think you've mixed something up. In the part you're referring to, the stim says the taboos may have arisen first, so the other uses were then found (nothing about those uses then becoming taboo). So from my reading the anthropologist is saying "Some researchers think animals had practical uses and were worth more alive than dead, so it became taboo to eat them, but I think it's possible that it became taboo to eat them because of some other (e.g., symbolic) reasons, so other more practical uses were found for the animals." Which sounds to me like E. I know I'm wrong, but I still don't see why.

Between (A) and (E), I incorrectly chose (E) as well. I eliminated (A) because it didn't seem like the author was suggesting that the "observations cited as evidence supporting it are also compatible..." The stimulus doesn't seem to suggest that the author is using the SAME evidence to prove his point...

At first, I read the argument was like this:

"some researchers" argument as: practical reasons -> taboo
author's argument: ritualistic reasons -> taboo -> other practical uses for other animals


Reading it in this way made it seem like the author was suggesting difference sequence of events for why eating certain animals are taboo.

But upon further review, I THINK I understand why (E) is incorrect. The argument that the author is contesting is that the "taboos originated solely for practical reasons." Saying "no, it doesn't have to be for practical reasons, rather it could have also been for symbolic ritualistic reasons." Essentially, the author isn't trying to argue for a different sequence of events, but to show that another cause or reason for the taboo is possible. Perhaps the author does propose a different sequence of events to prove a point, but that is not THE POINT argued as suggested by (E) with the phrase "and then argues..."

[logicfiend]

I think I'm reading this stimulus along the same lines as the poster above. When you realize the "events" (E) is talking about are actually the examples used to support the conclusion, it becomes clearer that (E) is not tackling the heart of the structure here. The argument is really about a practical reasons explanation vs. ritualistic, symbolic explanation.

I think an easier example really helps to understand this question.

Some researchers: taboo came about strictly for practical purposes.

Example (not meant to be anthropologically correct):

Society discovers cows produce milk --> cow becomes important food source --> creates taboo, society does not eat the cow.

Author: ritual, symbolic reason.

Cows have spiritual powers, are worshipped in community for centuries--> creates taboo, society does not eat the cow.

The focus of the stimulus is not on what sequence the taboo occurs in, but rather the trigger for the taboo. With this example, I think you can also see the evidence in the stimulus is compatible between the two explanations.

[lrnudelman]

I think you can quickly rule out all of the answers except for (A) if you look closely at the other answer choices:

B: Wrong, because it the argument doesn't necessarily address the inadequacy of the evidence at all. There is evidence; it's how it's interpreted that is the issue here.

C: This one is easily ruled out because of the phrase "another, more plausible hypothesis." It never says that the second hypothesis was MORE plausible, just that it's another possibility.

D: Wrong, since the evidence provided is not incompatible with both explanations - in fact, the evidence supports both equally.

E: I think this is the trickiest wrong answer choice, but you can toss it aside once you read the part where it says that the events occurred in a different pattern. The argument never definitively says that it happened differently; just that it COULD have happened differently. So this answer choice is wrong because it puts too much emphasis on one theory being the right one, when instead, they're both viable.

[benpatterson10]

I also selected "E" as the answer choice, but after reviewing the question carefully the author states "taboos against eating certain animals might instead have arisen"

Answer choice E says "argues that those events occurred" if it had said "could have occurred" or "might have occurred" it would have been correct. However the word occurred by itself is conclusive.

[e.sterlingsmith]

Could E also be wrong because symbolic/ritualistic reasons were never mentioned in the initial hypothesis and therefore could not be included in the different sequence? i.e Hypothesis 1 says A->B Hypothesis 2 says C->B->A