The conclusion of the argument is: new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older.
Why? Tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site us substantially older than the pottery and statuary that was estimated to have been established around 1000 B.C.
Answer choice (A) states: "The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement."
If the timber had marks showing that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement, then that means we cannot use the timber to establish the date of the ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia since the timber was brought from a completely different, earlier site. Thus, it would no longer necessarily be true that the evidence of the timber suggests that the settlement was considerably older than 1000 B.C.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
#JWAugust 14, 2019
I understand that A is the correct answer, but how do you rule out D as a possible choice as D demonstrates a more definitive answer based on a greater number of data points from pottery and statuary ?
Star_laOctober 13, 2020
When I read answer A I thought it meant that the timber was savaged from a earlier settlement, meaning that the people who build the settlement used the piece from another place. How would we know the difference? The answer does not clarify.
