#2 - From the tenth century until around the year 1500,

[ray57]

Hello,

I am lost on number 2. I chose D because I thought the last sentence undermined what the author was saying before, which is that the Inuits survived even though the others did not. I do not understand how B is the answer here or even what it means. Can you please explain this one?

Thanks,
Ray

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ray,

For this one, we have an argument about settlements in Greenland. The argument says that SOME PEOPLE suggest that the drop in average yearly temperature between 1000 and 1500 rendered the land uninhabitable for people. The stimulus though, states that cannot be right, because during that time the Inuit had settlements in Greenland. By citing the example of the Inuit, the author of the stimulus undermines the claim made by "some people" by providing a fact that is inconsistent with the conclusion reached by "some people." If the Inuit survived, the temperature drop must not have made Greenland uninhabitable for people.

For answer choice (B), it correctly describes the argument. It produces evidence, in the form of the Inuit settlement, that is inconsistent with the claim made by the people in the beginning of the stimulus (that Greenland was uninhabitable).

For answer choice (D), the author doesn't cite a general rule. He cites a specific example of a group that contradicts the suggestion made prior.

As an aside, be aware in arguments when you see the phrase "some people." This Is not a claim made by the author, but a claim made by someone else. So there's no inconsistency when the author argues against this claim.

Hope that helps!
Rachael