#21- Archaeologist: Our team discovered 5,000-year-old

[nhlsat1234567]

Hi,

It seems to me answer choice B is too strong of a required assumption, like answer E. That is, it is not necessary that the tools were found in that specific region for them to have been used by Aboriginal people in Canada right? It seems the necessary assumption is that they were present 5000 years in Canada not in that region (near that river) specifically. For instance, it could be true they were used elsewhere in Canada by the aboriginal people and brought to that region later on, but the conclusion could still be true that Aboriginal people used them in Canada to build canoes 5000 years ago. The point is they are unclear with "region" meaning "Canada." A region of the U.S. is not the whole U.S. Am I misguided here?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi nhlsat1234567!

The conclusion of this stimulus is the final sentence, "It is likely therefore that Aboriginal people in Canada built birchbark canoes 5,000 years ago." The author reaches this conclusion because the author's team found a 5,000-year-old tool in the region, and it is a tool that has more recently been used to build birchbark canoes.

However, what if the tool was not present in the region 5,000 years ago? Suppose, for example, that it was built somewhere other than Canada and somehow found its way to the Canadian region more recently. If that were the case, then finding the tool next to materials used for making canoes is not necessarily evidence that people in Canada made canoes 5,000 years ago.

Note that supposing that the tool was not present is applying the Assumption Negation technique to answer choice (B). That involves negating the answer choice and then plugging it back into the stimulus. If doing this weakens the stimulus or makes the argument fall apart, then you know it is an assumption on which the argument depends.