#16 - Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area

[Dana D]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The Correct answer choice is B.


The conclusion is that the rubbish in the pits tells us little about the possessions people nearby had. The premise for this conclusion is that the pits have been subject to erosion, which destroyed or deteriorated the rubbish within.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not support the conclusion that the rubbish doesn't tell us much about the people nearby.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This strengthens the conclusion that we can't learn much from the rubbish in the pits, because the most durable items have been scavenged and anything less durable has been subject to erosion or destroyed.

Answer choice (C): This could be true, but it doesn't provide additional insight into why we can't learn from the rubbish.

Answer choice (D): This is irrelevant information to the argument.

Answer choice (E): This doesn't necessarily strengthen the argument - maybe the items that were never discarded weren't particularly insightful. Also, the argument relies on this idea of erosion for justification on why we can't learn from the rubbish, so we need to find and answer choice which ties together the erosion and the lack of insight into the possessions.

[medialaw111516]

I can not for the life of me understand why B is correct? The conclusion is that the rubbish by itself tells us relatively little...I picked E because I thought if certain items (like maybe daily tools) were never discarded, we would not be learning much about the people. B is saying scavengers are taking the more durable items, but we would have to assume the most durable items would also be useful in telling us something about these people. I thought they were both poor answers so went for E.

[Claire Horan]

Hi MediaLaw,

You've dropped part of the question. It asks us to determine which statement strengthens the conclusion that the rubbish by itself tells us relatively little about the possessions the people had. And we have the premise that erosion has damaged some of the rubbish. If the more durable rubbish has been scavenged, and the less durable rubbish is still there but damaged by erosion, we won't learn much about the possessions. E, on the other hand, suggests that we couldn't learn about ALL of the peoples' possessions, but it doesn't do much to strengthen the conclusion that we can learn "relatively little" about the possessions.

An important tip: try not to generalize the conclusion. Instead, stick close to the precise conclusion being reached, and consider what premises already contribute to it.

Good luck with your studies!

[medialaw111516]

Makes so much more sense now. Thanks!

[Coleman]

This is a strengthen question and its question stem asks us to find what strengthens THE GROUNDS presented. The evidence deals with erosion as a possible cause why the rubbish in pits doesn't tell us much about those possessions held by ancient people. Since we have to strengthen this causal relationship between the natural erosion over time and disappearance or damages of rubbish I chose answer choice (C).
(B) seems like a weakening answer because it offers an alternative cause saying that erosion was not the real cause. Instead, it was scavengers who marauded the rubbish pits regularly. How does (B) strengthen the conclusion? Especially the possible cause was indicated as "erosion", the wording of answer choice (C) is more aligned with it - the removed soil surroudning the pits.

[AspenHerman]

For this one, do we need to look for an answer that provides reasons that the rubbish tells little about the possessions in the pit? Like, the reason why E is not the answer is because the items were never in the pit. But, if some of the items have been removed, then we will never know much about the items that are/have been in the pit.

Does that make sense? I got this one right, but I want to check my reasoning for this strengthen question.

[alicechoi86@gmail.com]

Like @Coleman, I chose (C) for this question because I was linking the erosion from the stimulus with removing the soil surrounding the pits in answer choice (C).

Is it too much of a jump in logic to think that removing soil surrounding the pits would make them more subject to erosion, which would contribute to the destructive effects on the items even more?

Would love any insight as to why (C) could be eliminated, thanks!

[atierney]

Hi,

For this question, while I agree that C is a contender here, mainly because of the presence of "soil," the argument uses the destructive effects of erosion, and not simply any activity undertaken as to the soil as the primary consideration for the argument that there is nothing valuable to be found within the rubbish. And this is a close read, but the point is that the erosion itself has affected the rubbish, thus, the artificial actions to increase the effects of erosion as to the soil itself, but not necessarily to reproduce such effects upon the rubbish therein will no strengthen the argument.

However, the fact that the items within the pits are among the less durable items used within the society, as indicated by choice B, makes it more likely, and thus gives credence to the claim, that such items would be those affected by the erosion process itself.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.