From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwes...
tomgbeanSeptember 27, 2019
Why I did not choose A
i did not choose A because the stimulus indicates that the timber was from the settlement being analyze. A states that it was from an earlier site but does not indicate that it was from a different site. How are we to make the jump in logic that the earlier site is a different site when the passage states that the timber being analyzed was from the same site as the pottery? Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
(A) is not saying that the timber is from a different site, it is merely saying that it is from an earlier settlement, presumably at the same site. The stimulus only tells us that a piece of timber was found at the same site, not that it is necessarily from the same settlement. The conclusion presumes that it is from the same settlement, but (A) effectively weakens the conclusion pointing out that just because timber was found at the same site does not mean it is not from an earlier settlement.
nicolecaldOctober 31, 2020
Sorry I don't understand your explanation. You say "(A) effectively weakens the conclusion pointing out that just because timber was found at the same site does not mean it is not from an earlier settlement." and the answer quite literally says timber is from an earlier settlement. But if we are supposed to weaken the conclusion that "the settlement is considerably older" and we find timber that IS in fact from an earlier settlement than 1000 B.C, then how isn't answer (A) strengthening instead of weakening? I mean how are we not supposed to interpret "earlier" as "older" and therefore eliminate (A) as an answer choice?
