The evidence from Ban Chiang discussed in passage B relates to the generalization reported in the second paragraph of...

Christopher on June 3, 2018

@meisen

This question is essentially asking you to determine the interaction between a single study and a broad generalization. The generalization is that as a culture becomes more dependent on agriculture, dental carries tend to increase. However, in the Ban Chiang example, the opposite seems to be true. So how does that study interact with the generalization?

It does not prove the generalization or even support it, so (A) and (B) are out.

It is relevant to the generalization because it deals directly with the same issue, so (C) is out.

Clearly, the Ban Chiang example does not fit within the broader generalization put forward in the first selection, so the choice becomes whether (D) the Ban Chiang example does not conform to the generalization or (E) the Ban Chiang example disproves the generalization. To choose between these, you need to look at the language in both passages.

In passage A, it refers to research that fits within the generalization as being "frequently confirmed." In passage B, the author talks about possible explanations for the decline in dental carries that provide alternate explanations as to why it doesn't fit the norm. Both of these would indicate that the generalization put forward in passage A is not being argued as a universal and that the example in passage B includes circumstances that provide alternate explanations for the decline.

Therefore, you can safely conclude that (D) the Ban Chiang example does not conform to the generalization, but you cannot conclude that it disproves it.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions.