Q16 - Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The trash found in these pits tells us pretty little about the possessions of these people.

Evidence: The pits have been subject to a lot of erosion, which has had destructive effects on the trash.

Answer Anticipation:
If we were playing Devil's Advocate to the conclusion, how could we argue that "even though erosion has had destructive effects on the trash in these pits, the trash CAN still tell us a whole bunch of the possessions of these people"? We could certainly argue that just because something has eroded it could still be recognizable. I'm sure that in 200+ years, erosion has had destructive effects on the Statue of Liberty, but we can still tell what it is.

A strengthener might reassure us that erosion has been SO destructive that the rubbish is indistinguishable. Because of the question stem, which asks that we strengthen the grounds presented, we wouldn't be looking for new, independent reason to think that the trash tells us very little. This should be all about further convincing us that "if it's been subjected to this destructive erosion, it's not gonna tell us much about the possessions"

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) If anything, this seems to weaken.

(B) YES, this helps. It answers our potential objection of, "What if erosion hasn't completely ruined some of the items?" Too bad, this answer says. Those durable items already got stolen, so the only stuff you'll find is the non-durable stuff that got badly destroyed by erosion.

(C) Fun fact! Not sure how it's relevant to whether erosion destroyed the contents of the pits beyond recognition.

(D) Gross -- this means that they threw their trash into what used to be their graveyard. So as we're fishing through eroded trash, we might also be digging up old dead bodies. Maybe some would see that as a strengthener -- "you'll learn little about the possessions if the trash pits were earlier used to bury the dead", but it's certainly a less direct strengthener than (B). This at best would suggest that rubbish might be mixed in with dead body remains and thus be harder to identify. Meanwhile, (B) more directly tells us that the most salvageable, useful findings have already been skimmed out of the pits.

(E) If it's not discarded, it's not in the trash pit, so it's not relevant to this conversation.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is one of those Strengthen questions in which I think it helps our brain find the correct answer if we took a little time to think of how we'd object to the argument. By hearing the objection, "What if erosion wasn't bad enough to destroy all the stuff in those pits?" we better understand the effect of learning "the stuff hat best survived has already been removed".