#6 - Standard archaeological techniques make it possible

[donger]

B&C were my contenders for this question but I eliminated B, the right answer, because it discussed laboratory procedures, which do not necessary qualify for the “standard archaeological techniques” the conclusion states. Thus, I thought B only strengthened the conclusion by saying that it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings using standard archaeological techniques alone.

[Steve Stein]

Hi donger

In that one, the author provides that the age of anything containing vegetable matter can be determined, as long as there is no carbon in the mix.

Prehistoric paint can be removed but limestone comes with it, bringing carbon, so the author concludes that standard techniques cannot be used to determine the age in this case.

The author concludes that determining the age of this type of paint sample is impossible.

Answer choice B provides that there is a way in the lab to remove the limestone, so this would weaken the author's conclusion. The author does not say that such lab procedures are new or revolutionary, so there is no basis for the presumption that they are "non-standard" techniques.

I hope that's helpful--let me know if it's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[bsis304]

I'm confused about why "B" is the correct answer. I considered "B" but thought that "laboratory procedures" would put this answer choice out of the scope of the stimulus since the conclusion speaks specifically about "standard archeological techniques". So, I ended up choosing "A". After thinking on it, the only explanation I can ascertain is that "laboratory procedures" somehow constitute a "standard archeological procedure", but never having studied archeology I would have no way to confirm that. I still can't understand the rationale here.

Could you explain why "B" is correct?

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Good question!

First, regarding what is inside or outside the scope, keep in mind the direction in which the information flows; this is a Weaken question--which one of the following, if true, weakens? That means that the correct answer choice can bring in new information.

In that one, the author says that standard archaeological techniques can determine the age of anything with vegetable matter--provided that the object in question has no carbon.

Prehistoric paintings were done with vegetable based paints, but they were done on limestone (which has carbon).

Since there is no way to take a sample of prehistoric paint without removing some of the carbon-based limestone as well, the author concludes that determining the age of those paints they way they normally do would be impossible. This is a very bold claim:

Premisee: S.A. Techniques can determine age of something with vegetable matter, but only if there is no carbon included in a sample.

Premise: Taking a sample of the paintings in question would require removing some limestone, which contains carbon.

Conclusion: Therefore there is no way that the S.A. Techniques could be used for age determination.

Again, this author is making quite a bold claim--that means that if there is any way to remove the carbon from the sample, that would refute the author's claim, as that would allow S.A. Techniques to be used to figure out the age of the paint.

Correct answer choice (B) provides that it's possible for the carbon to be removed--and this would allow the Standard Techniques to be successfully applied.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[bsis304]

Thank you for your response! It's crystal clear now. I forgot the flow of information in Weaken questions and Fact Tested the answers, which I can clearly see now was the wrong way to approach it. Thank you for your help!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

I'm glad that was helpful, and I appreciate your response as well!

Steve

[Jerrymakehabit]

I have a question here which may sound dumb but I still would want to clarify my concern.
"it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone"
Does it mean "it is possible to collect the paint by removing limestone" or "it is possible to collect the paint with limestone"? It seems the latter one is correct but the "removing" word in the original sentence really bothers me. Can someone please help with this?

Thanks
Jerry

[Brook Miscoski]

Jerrymakehabit,

It's a conditional statement described by the unless/except/without/until drill (The Unless Equation).

It's impossible to remove the paint without removing limestone with the paint.

Ergo,

Remove paint limestone comes with it.

It's not necessary to diagram the conditional reasoning. What you want is to realize that the stimulus is telling you that you can't get the paint by itself--you will end up with some of the limestone in your paint sample.