pikachu wrote:
Most bio-historians believe that a particular disease emerged in Central Africa less than 15,000 years ago and spread northward into Europe and Asia. But the recent discovery in Northern Europe of human remains conclusively proven to have died of the disease 28,000 years ago has led some scientists to postulate that the disease emerged in Europe and spread southward.
Which of the following, if found, would provide relevant evidence against the conjecture described above?
a. Human remains in Southern Egypt show evidence of the disease, and are dated to 12,000 years ago.
b. Some diseased African remains predate any found in Europe.
c. The likelihood of an African of 15,000 years ago dying of the disease was greater than that of a European of 28,000 years ago.
d. The 28,000-year-old infected remains in Europe were found among other remains dated between 4,000 and 30,000 years old.
e. A European ice age about 20,000 years ago killed off the pathogen that causes the disease.
Which of the following, if found, would provide relevant evidence against the conjecture described above?
a. Human remains in Southern Egypt show evidence of the disease, and are dated to 12,000 years ago.
b. Some diseased African remains predate any found in Europe.
c. The likelihood of an African of 15,000 years ago dying of the disease was greater than that of a European of 28,000 years ago.
d. The 28,000-year-old infected remains in Europe were found among other remains dated between 4,000 and 30,000 years old.
e. A European ice age about 20,000 years ago killed off the pathogen that causes the disease.
We are looking for evidence to weaken the conclusion that the disease started in Europe. The argument itself uses a timeline as it's premise. It implies that earlier remains with evidence of the disease show the emergence of the disease. Therefore in order to provide evidence against this one would have to find evidence of the disease in earlier remains outside of Europe.
A) 12,000 years ago is later so this doesn't help our timeline
B) This is the answer because is shows earlier remains in Africa than in Europe so the disease could not have started in Europe.
C) likelihood of dying is not at issue in this argument so it cannot weaken the conclusion.
D) if we know the exact date of the remains knowing what else was found with them doesn't matter.
E) knowing when the disease ceased being virrulent doesn't help because we want to find earlier infected remains.
Thus B is the only answer that attacks the author's line of reasoning.