Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LR Question  (Read 1656 times)

Gummibearz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
    • AOL Instant Messenger - gummibearz
    • View Profile
    • Email
LR Question
« on: September 22, 2004, 01:58:55 PM »
Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have  archaeologists puzzled.  The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diet of the painters.  This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway, if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:

A)  Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.

B)  Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.

C)  The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.

D)  Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.

E)  The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.




Please explain why you chose your answer.
Attending:  Tulane, Class of 2008!

lweiger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR Question
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2004, 02:27:24 PM »
Looks like C).

Gummibearz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
    • AOL Instant Messenger - gummibearz
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR Question
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2004, 02:28:08 PM »
Why C?
Attending:  Tulane, Class of 2008!

vegemitemama

  • Guest
Re: LR Question
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2004, 02:38:07 PM »
I was thinking B. All the answers had to weaken the argument against the original theory. In other words, all the answers strengthened the original theory. I looked at all the answers like that and came up with B. C looks like it's saying the same thing as A, to me.

BIG H2001

  • Guest
Re: LR Question
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2004, 02:44:58 PM »
I say B also, you're looking for the answer that could either offer support for the proposition that the cave people ate sea animals or that they didn't eat land animals.  If some of the paintings were lost, then there might be evidence of the cave people eating sea animals in those paintings. 

la-man

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • I need some gel.
    • View Profile
Re: LR Question
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2004, 02:57:27 PM »
look at this way....which answer choice is saying something different than the rest? answer choice B is my choice.....
UCLA 1L.

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR Question
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2004, 03:17:34 PM »
B fully weakens the conclusion that since there is no evidence of sea animals on the caves, the theory is wrong.  B suggests there could be sea paintings but they didn't survive.  I say "C". 

A -- weakens bc it suggests that they wouldn't paint sea animals on the island bc they didn't eat sea animals on the island

B -- See above

C -- Does nothing to it, really

D --  Suggests that they didn't need sea animals for food.

E --  They didn't need to make the journey and therefore didn't need to eat  sea animals.

So I say C.

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: LR Question
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2004, 03:17:38 PM »
C.

B definitely does weakens it because if parts of the wall paintings didnt survive then it could be that there were drawings of sea creatures, but they were destroyed before being discovered.  that would make the theory correct and weaken the argument against it.

BIG H2001

  • Guest
Re: LR Question
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2004, 04:19:42 PM »
I don't see how C does not weaken the argument in the conclusion.  The argument says that the paintings largely depicted the diet of the inhabitants.  The authors argues that this can't be true because they ate sea animals.  If the paintings depicted were land animals and this is connected to their diet being land animals how does this not weaken the author's conclusion that they ate sea animals?

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: LR Question
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2004, 04:20:50 PM »
it doesnt say the ONLY depicted land animals.

so what, they could have depicted my ass on the walls, but that doesnt eliminate the possibility of there being other drawings too.