Passage Summary: An anthropologist thinks their theory about monkey knowledge is true because it predicted behavior correctly, but a primatologist points out that you can predict an ATM's behavior by assuming it has feelings, even though it obviously doesn't.

Conclusion: The anthropologist's claim that their assumption must be true simply because it led to accurate predictions is logically unsound.

Reasoning: The primatologist provides a parallel example where a clearly false assumption (that ATMs have desires) can also lead to accurate predictions, demonstrating that predictive success does not prove the truth of an underlying assumption.

Analysis: This Method of Reasoning question asks us to describe the primatologist's rebuttal technique. The primatologist uses a 'reductio ad absurdum' or a parallel counter-example to expose a flaw in the opponent's logic. They aren't saying the anthropologist's data is wrong; they are saying the *inference* from 'it works' to 'it is true' is a logical leap. Look for an answer that describes showing a reasoning type to be invalid by applying it to a different, clearly ridiculous case.