If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content
Current time:0:00Total duration:5:34

Identify the role | Worked example

Video transcript

biologists often announce that a certain kind of animal has been found capable of using tools this usually refers to something like using a stick to hunt for ants in a log or stone to crack nuts but such announcements are completely unsurprising since all animals use tools birds build nests fish hide in the mud to escape predators and squirrels use buildings as shortcuts between trees if an animal executes its purpose by means of an external physical object then that object can reasonably be regarded as a tool which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the biologist announcements that a certain animal has been found capable of using tools are unsurprising so the clay so which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by this claim so let's first just find the claim so we see it right over here they say biologists often announce with certain kinds of an ax but a certain kind of animal has been found capable of using tools this usually refers to something like using a stick to hunt for ants and a log or a stone to crack nuts but such announcements are completely unsurprising so let me let me underline that but such announcements are completely unsurprising so that's what they're talking about the biologist announcements the claim that biologists the claim that biologists announcements that certain animal has been found capable of using tools are unsurprising so what role is that having in this in this argument so let's just think about a little bit they're saying that okay I'll just make this announcement they usually around an animal using the stick to hunt for hands but they're unsurprising and then they say all animals use tools well all animals use tools seem to point to this statement so it seems to back up this if you believe that all animals use tools and you would say that such an you would agree that such announcements are unseen and then later they talk about birds build nests fish hide in the mud escape predators and squirrels use buildings as shortcuts between trees if an animal executes its purpose by means of an external physical object which all of these are examples of then that object can reasonably be regarded as a tool I don't know if I agree with that statement but let's just go with a little bit this is the author trying to back up this notion that all animals use tools so this red part backs up tries to give evidence for all animals using tools this idea that maybe all animals are using tools so the red part seems to back up this this notion that the author has that all animals use tools which seems to back up what we underlined which I would say is the conclusion this the idea that these announcements from biologists are completely unsurprising so I would say that this right over here is the conclusion here they're talking about what is unsurprising and then they're talking about that this you know they find it unsurprising and then everything else is backing it up this backing up this conclusion but say hey look all animals use tools and they kind of go into examples and definition of what it means to use a tool that backs up this idea that animals use tools so let's look at the choices to see if any of them coincide with what I just reasoned through it provides evidence that the animals activities given as examples are purposeful now what I underlined this is what we're trying to which thing what role does this underlined part say this notion the the biologist announcements that certain animal has been found capable of using tools as unsurprising this isn't providing evidence so I would I would mark that out it's making a conclusion as I said before that something is unsurprising it is the conclusion of the argument yep that feels exactly that feels exactly right it's not in support of other things it is the thing that other things are supporting all right it is an assumption used by the argument to justify acceptance of a broader conception of what a tool is that has that usually accept then that usually accepted by the biologist well the way that this argument is structured it does finish with this non-traditional definition of a tool so sometimes you might just superficially say hey maybe I'm building to a conclusion but this argument is not built that way that definition was a way that definition in conjunction with these examples is used to support this idea that all animals use tools which is used to then make the conclusion that those announcements are unsurprising so I would rule that out it calls into question the basis of the biologists conception of a tool know that the part that I underlined definitely doesn't do that the part that underlines the part is saying hey it's unsurprising it addresses a weakness in the biologists announcements that stems from their biggest use of the word external no it does it's not pointing to a weakness in their in their argument so I wouldn't address as a weakness in the biologist announcements that stems from their ambiguous word of the use of the word external no it's not trying to point at the ambiguity once against trying to make a conclusion that's unsurprising when biologists say that some animal or another has been using tools so I definitely like choice be