#15 - Concept Reference, Strengthen

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[quan-tang@hotmail.com]

I chose E instead of B because the coin they sell, in the stem, does not seem to made clear to have 'substantial archaeological value'. Stem actually undermined their archaeological value by saying they have lesser value than other artifacts. What constitutes 'substantial' was really not clear.

And I cant see why E is wrong

[Luke Haqq]

Hi quan-tang!

Happy to address answer choices (B) and (E).

As to why (B) is correct, we're asked about what strengthens the views of the critics of for-profit archaeology and the declaration on underwater cultural heritage. The latter refers to the entire Passage B, while the former is specifically about the final paragraph of Passage A. Answer choice (B) states, "Selling artifacts that have substantial archaeological value encourages the looting of archaeological sites by nonscientists."

The critics are doubtful about selling underwater cultural heritage, specifically because the sale of such artifacts "inhibits scholarly analysis and public display." If (B) were true, this would strengthen the view of the critics because looting by nonscientists would inhibit scholarly analysis. To your point about ambiguity in the word "substantial," we're told in Passage A that the value is approximately $4 billion. Answer choice (B) would also strengthen the declaration made in Passage B; this declaration prioritizes leaving such artifacts as they are as much as possible, as opposed to alternatives like selling them. If (B) were true, this would strengthen the recommendations in Passage B of leaving these artifacts undisturbed over selling them.

As to why (E) is incorrect, that answer choice states, "The excavation and recovery of valuable cargo and artifacts from shipwrecks almost always involves disturbing human remains." The critics and the draft convention presumably wouldn't dispute this. However, this answer choice leaves open questions in assessing whether or not it would strengthen their positions. We don't necessarily know whether this would inhibit scholarly analysis--it might make scholarly analysis of human remains more difficult while helping such analysis of the recovered cargo and artifacts. Similarly, the convention in Passage B would likely agree with this point, but leaving these remains undisturbed only come in at #5 of 7 on its prioritized list. This answer choice thus doesn't clearly strengthen its prioritization.

[Yvette X]

Hi quan-tang!

Happy to address answer choices (B) and (E).

As to why (B) is correct, we're asked about what strengthens the views of the critics of for-profit archaeology and the declaration on underwater cultural heritage. The latter refers to the entire Passage B, while the former is specifically about the final paragraph of Passage A. Answer choice (B) states, "Selling artifacts that have substantial archaeological value encourages the looting of archaeological sites by nonscientists."

The critics are doubtful about selling underwater cultural heritage, specifically because the sale of such artifacts "inhibits scholarly analysis and public display." If (B) were true, this would strengthen the view of the critics because looting by nonscientists would inhibit scholarly analysis. To your point about ambiguity in the word "substantial," we're told in Passage A that the value is approximately $4 billion. Answer choice (B) would also strengthen the declaration made in Passage B; this declaration prioritizes leaving such artifacts as they are as much as possible, as opposed to alternatives like selling them. If (B) were true, this would strengthen the recommendations in Passage B of leaving these artifacts undisturbed over selling them.

As to why (E) is incorrect, that answer choice states, "The excavation and recovery of valuable cargo and artifacts from shipwrecks almost always involves disturbing human remains." The critics and the draft convention presumably wouldn't dispute this. However, this answer choice leaves open questions in assessing whether or not it would strengthen their positions. We don't necessarily know whether this would inhibit scholarly analysis--it might make scholarly analysis of human remains more difficult while helping such analysis of the recovered cargo and artifacts. Similarly, the convention in Passage B would likely agree with this point, but leaving these remains undisturbed only come in at #5 of 7 on its prioritized list. This answer choice thus doesn't clearly strengthen its prioritization.

Hi! Still confused about why E is problematic.
First of all, you mentions that "leaving these remains undisturbed only come in at #5 of 7 on its prioritized list". I am wondering how to decide that the list in Passage B is a priority list?
Besides, if the priority or main stance of Passage B is UCH should be in situ protected, will the claim "any excavation and recovery of ...almost always involves disturbing human remains" serve as a strong support to why we should leave all of these in original site and do not do any excavations and recovery?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Yvette X!

If I understand the question correctly, one can glean that this is a "priority list" from the context. The first sentence introduces underwater cultural heritage. The remainder of the passage is seven numbered bullet points. It's not absolutely essential that the first entry on the list is prioritized more than later entries. Rather, all seven of the numbered items are priorities of UNESCO's Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Heritage.

Regarding answer choice (E), that answer states, "The excavation and recovery of valuable cargo and artifacts from shipwrecks almost always involves disturbing human remains." We're looking for something that would strengthen the draft convention in B, as well as the critics of for-profit archaeology in A. Regarding the critics in A, we're told "Many archaeologists abhor the sale of recovered artifacts, arguing that this inhibits scholarly analysis and public display." (E) might strengthen this inasmuch as excavation inhibits scholarly analysis. This doesn't really strengthen the convention in B, however, because the convention is generally against the sale of UCH, and this answer choice doesn't address selling UCH.

[nonowing]

Hi,

Why is answer choice A wrong? Charging a fee could inhibit public display (supporting critics in A) and doesn't encourage public access (supporting B).

Maybe, it is wrong because encouraging public access is still compatible with charging fees? B also says that the public access should be promoted "where practicable" and it could be not practicable to allow free access (after all, they need funding to operate).

I could be equating "public access" to free access, and maybe this is not warranted. Many national parks are open to the public, but that doesn't make them free to access (many charge entry fees).

As for why E is wrong, I think that the problem is more passage A than B. A doesn't mention "disturbing human remains" at all as a criteria for the critics, or in the passage elsewhere. To me, it's not clear that disturbing human remains will inhibit scholarly analysis (how do we know that the remains we are disturbing are even relevant at all to the analysis)? Say we are studying ancient artifacts found in a shipwreck. Yeah, there will be human remains because there were people on the ship, but disturbing them to get the artifacts is, if anything, in service of the government's analysis. It's true that selling the artifacts may disturb scholarly analysis (which is what the critics are worried about), but answer E doesn't mention the sale of the artifacts, just the excavation and recovery, and the resulting effect on human remains. But the disruption of human remains is not alone enough to prove that scholarly analysis will be inhibited.

[nonowing]

I also just found more support in passage B: under number "5" it says that we should avoid the "unnecessary" disturbance of human remains." This doesn't mean that we should avoid disturbing human remains at all, just not more than necessary. So neither passage appears to support answer E. Just because it involves disturbing human remains does not mean that it will disturb them more than is necessary.

[uncleschaeflit]

Hi Yvette X!

If I understand the question correctly, one can glean that this is a "priority list" from the context. The first sentence introduces underwater cultural heritage. The remainder of the passage is seven numbered bullet points. It's not absolutely essential that the first entry on the list is prioritized more than later entries. Rather, all seven of the numbered items are priorities of UNESCO's Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Heritage.

Regarding answer choice (E), that answer states, "The excavation and recovery of valuable cargo and artifacts from shipwrecks almost always involves disturbing human remains." We're looking for something that would strengthen the draft convention in B, as well as the critics of for-profit archaeology in A. Regarding the critics in A, we're told "Many archaeologists abhor the sale of recovered artifacts, arguing that this inhibits scholarly analysis and public display." (E) might strengthen this inasmuch as excavation inhibits scholarly analysis. This doesn't really strengthen the convention in B, however, because the convention is generally against the sale of UCH, and this answer choice doesn't address selling UCH.

It's the sentence before in A: "a difficult technical feat that critics of for-profit archaeology are likely to doubt." We strengthen by saying, "Yea, these critics are onto something because *almost always* human remains are disturbed." Now, we don't know if this counts as "archaeological integrity," but it's a defensible inference.