- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Feb 06, 2024
- Wed Jul 31, 2024 11:39 am
#107970
Hey Dave,
As you identified, this stimulus makes the argument that the reason archaeologists can't study many remains is because they were made of wood - this, combined with the last sentence, implies that most models were either wood or ceramic. Most of the evidence has come from these ceramic models, because the wood ones have disintegrated. Sure, there might be other remains out there that were made from neither ceramic nor wood, but the fact that the argument says for this reason (this being the ruined wood) archaeologists cannot find the remains of many early models implies that wood and ceramic were the primary materials used. A way to weaken this argument might be to prove there were other disintegrating materials like fruity pebbles used, but as the stimulus is written we can infer that the predominate materials were wood or ceramic.
As you identified, this stimulus makes the argument that the reason archaeologists can't study many remains is because they were made of wood - this, combined with the last sentence, implies that most models were either wood or ceramic. Most of the evidence has come from these ceramic models, because the wood ones have disintegrated. Sure, there might be other remains out there that were made from neither ceramic nor wood, but the fact that the argument says for this reason (this being the ruined wood) archaeologists cannot find the remains of many early models implies that wood and ceramic were the primary materials used. A way to weaken this argument might be to prove there were other disintegrating materials like fruity pebbles used, but as the stimulus is written we can infer that the predominate materials were wood or ceramic.