Hi @GLEE and thanks for your question. Here is how I would approach this problem.
First, focus on the question stem. We know what we are after is to determine why the reasoning in the argument is flawed. Right off the bat, you should notice that the passage seems to indicate that access to all documents means that the archaeologists will be able to determine whether the report is accurate. That seems fishy. Let’s look at each answer and see if any address that problem.
A: This answer is close, as it goes to the issue of whether the reviewers will have access to data about the objects in the museum (and therefore something beyond the documents on which the report is based). But it is wrong insofar as it focuses on the fact that the argument “does not specify†whether the reviews will have access to data — and that lack of specificity is not itself a flaw in the reasoning in the argument.
B: We know this is wrong because the size or quality of the museum’s collection has nothing to do with the accuracy of the report.
C: Same issue here. The collection being on display does not impact the accuracy of the report.
D: Ah ha! As we predicted, this answer homes in on the fact there might have been some sales or acquisitions not mentioned in the documents on which the report was based. This answer addresses the linkage we thought was fishy — between having the documents on which the report was based, and a guarantee that the archeologists will be able to determine whether the report is accurate.
E: This answer describes something after the fact, and does not go to why the reasoning in the argument is flawed.
I hope this helps! Let us know if you have further questions.
