From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwes...

Shirnel May 20, 2020

Building timber bore marks that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement

I can't see how this statement tell me that the timber was brought in from another site. When I read the stimulus I pre-determined that an answer choice may indicate to me that the timber was not an original piece from the settlement being examined, however, this the language in (A) doesn't translate that to me. Hence why (C) seemed more like a fit to me. Is the keyword in answer choice (A) salvaged? Please explain why (C) is wrong.

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

Already have an account? log in

shunhe May 29, 2020

Hi @Shirnel,

Thanks for the question! So the fact that the timber bore marks that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement suggests that it was brought in from another site (an earlier settlement being, of course, not the current settlement). While it may not be 100% conclusive evidence, it certainly weakens the argument by opening up the possibility that the timber came from elsewhere, an older settlement, and it then wouldn’t tell us anything about this settlement. I wouldn’t really say “salvaged” is a key word in answer (A), but more the idea that the wood could have came from somewhere else, and it’s only one piece of wood, so we can’t draw too many conclusions from it.

Now let’s take a look at (C), which tells us that the tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber. The age of the tests is pretty irrelevant here. And we can’t assume any correlation between the age of the tests and the reliability of the tests; it’s definitely much larger a leap than we have to make in (A). And so (C) doesn’t most seriously undermine the conclusion.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.