For several centuries there have been hairless dogs in western Mexico and in coastal Peru. It is very unlikely that a...

cjahangiri on December 3, 2019

Why E and not B?

I was torn between them and ended up selecting B. Thanks!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Victoria on December 3, 2019

Hi @cjahangiri,

The passage is arguing that hairless dogs must have been transported between western Mexico and coastal Peru by boat.

Why? Because hairless dogs have never existed in the wild, it is unlikely that they would have emerged on two separate occasions, and the mountainous jungle separating these two regions would have made overland travel very difficult.

B is incorrect because it is irrelevant to the argument and it overlooks one possible route of transportation. It does not matter if most of the trade goods came to western Mexico by boat. Even if only one or two trading voyages travelled to western Mexico by boat, it is still entirely possible that the dogs were transported this way. Additionally, we don't know whether the dogs originated in Mexico or Peru. It is possible that the dogs were introduced on a trade expedition going to Peru from Mexico.

E is correct because, if the assumption is negated, it is no longer possible for the conclusion to be properly drawn. If it was harder to travel between the regions by boat than by overland route, we can no longer conclude that the dogs must have been transported by boat because of the difficulty of travelling over land. In this case, it would be possible, and maybe more likely, that the dogs were transported by overland, rather than boat, travel.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.