OG12 13题 请教！

May.K

我的观点和以上略有不同，以下是我的思路，欢迎探讨~
首先，这题的问法比较特殊，结论出现在问题里，但我们可以将其转化为strengthen题。简单来说，题目可改写为如下格式：
In Swartkans territory, XXXXXX. So the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids.
Which of the following, if true, would provide the best basis for the claim?
这题的核心逻辑其实是：charred bone被加热到了campfire所能加热到的温度（即bone被用campfire加热过）→原始人会用火。
这个逻辑显然很weak，可以从很多角度攻击，但最关键的一个assumption是认为原始人能使用campfire加热charred bone。在给出的5个选项中，只有E能strengthen。具体分析如下：
A：在讲生火材料的用途，无关；
B：森林大火也能加热木头到一定温度，但我们关注的是bone，无关；
C：显然无关；
D：50万年前原始人会用火，但原题说的是100万年前的事，无关；而且这么直白且笼统的概括，直觉上也不像是strengthen题的正答风格
E：碎骨旁边有原始人使用的切割工具，说明原始人处理过charred bone，结合这些charred bone被加热过，进一步增强了原始人会用火的结论。换个角度，E也削弱了这些bone是无意掉到campfire里而非原始人用火加热的可能性，排除它因。
当然，就像楼上说的，哪怕E选项也无法“证实”结论，它只是slightly strengthen the conclusion。
PS.这题让我联想到CR Bible对strengthen题的总结里有说过，不论strengthen的效果只有1%还是100%，都是strengthen，而strengthen的强度正是增加此类题型难度的地方，也是出题者最喜欢搞事的part。这题看起来很好地印证了这一点~

Bensontuo

Question type : Necessary Assumption + Support.

Argument structure:

If early hominids use fire, it must be true that 1. charred bone fragment analysis must be correct. + ( one of the options offered.    )

ALWAYS ENGAGE WITH ARGUMENT SUBCONSCIOUSLY  AND PREP THE POSSIBLE HINTS IN YOUR MIND

1. if there use fire, it must be true that they have " things " to burn with
2."  no higher than " = Equal or less than
3. Best basis = necessary condition


let us go into the answers.

A. Not really relevant, please don't waste time on reviewing this answer.

B. Sounds weird, how could " temperature " really does matter to the argument ? Let us negate the logic stand of this statement as: Forest fires can not heat wood to a range of temperatures that occur in campfires.  Well, it could be less as we anticipate right ? SO, it does not break the argument by negating the logical stand of this statement.

C. It does not necessary required archaeologists to form the complete skeletons from the bone fragment gathered.

D. Ok, Out of scope. Think in this way, from this answer, we have the other set of the evidence for the other claim that seems to be associated positively with our original claim. However, there is no way it could certainly true that by exchanging the premises for supporting 2 " seems to be " similar claims.

We do not necessary need the " evidence of human using fire 500,000 years ago " to support the claim that " the If human using fire a million years ago, it must be true that those charred bone fragments must be the evidence for it.  You could only say that if the claim we seek to prove is correct, then it must be true that " evidence of human using fire 500,000 years ago must also be true.

E. Let us negate it

" Bone fragment were not found in any of the limestone that contained primitive cutting tools known to have been used by early human "   Which is to say, if no bone could be found in those cutting tools, then it must be true that there is a chance of those cutting tools never be used for cutting the bones, and if no bones be cut by human, then it also must be true that it is " possible " that those charred bone fragments are not from any human activities, and in that sense, inevitably, we must not deny a possible claim that no way can we prove the bones could be regarded as the evidence of human use fire.

題目要你去證明的是一個步驟

如果人類用火, 而且被燒過的骨頭碎片是人類用火的證據, 那必要假設為何？

如果不懂, 我可以再解釋。