#10 - Archaeologist: The extensive network of ancient tracks

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[yusrak]

Hi Powerscore,

I got the correct answer but I hesitated on choice D. During the test, I did not diagram but simply realized that there is a mini counter-argument in the middle of the stimulus and choice D is a response to that counter-argument. But would choice D be categorized as a sub-conclusion or a counter premise to a counter argument? I want to know if my understanding of the argument structure is correct:

Counter p: uniformity of track depth
Counter c: tracks were manually cut

Premise: routes were used until tracks eroded making vehicle passage impossible
Sub-conclusion: uniformity most likely indicates wheel diameter
Conclusion: ancient tracks most likely created through erosion caused by wheeled vehicles

Is that the correct structure? Thanks in advance.

Best,
Yusra Khafagi

[Paul Marsh]

Hi yusrak! Nice job getting this one right.

You were right to hesitate on (D), since that sentence contains conclusion indicators ("However", "more likely"). But, as you figured out, it is a sub-conclusion (aka intermediate conclusion), upon which the final conclusion rests. The first sentence relies upon the first sentence - not the other way around. The structure you outlined is exactly correct.

Nice going!

[lwilliamsusi@gmail.com]

I chose E because it seemed like it received support from the first sentence of the stimuli. I feel like the colon before the last clause should've keyed me in that it wasn't the conclusion. Am I correct?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi lwilliamsusi,

The colon isn't decisive here. It's the relationship between the ideas in the stimulus that let us know what is the conclusion and what is a premise. We can use the because, therefore test to help us make that determination. If you have two statements that you are trying to determine which is the premise, and which is the conclusion, we can insert one after the word because (a premise indicator), and the other after the word therefore (a conclusion indicator). Then we can switch places and see which makes more sense.

Let's see it in action.

Because the tracks were most likely created through erosion caused by the passage of wheeled vehicles, therefore the routes were used until the tracks eroded until vehicle passage was impossible

OR

Because the routes were used until vehicle passage was impossible, the tracks were most likely created through erosion caused by the passage of wheeled vehicles.

Which one makes more sense? The second is more coherent--the routes being used until erosion made passage impossible supports the idea that the tracks were caused by the passage of wheeled vehicles.

Hope that helps!