IMO D.

Conclusion of the argument is :
the location of the vase indicates that there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago.

Couple of questions I had after reading the passage were:
1) Why couldnt the vase belong to sicily itself? Why it had to be traded?
2) Why couldnt some one else place the vase there after many years?

With these in mind, let us look at the options:
Remeber that the assumption should spoli the conclusion when negated.

(A) Sicilian potters who lived during the reign of the ruler did not produce work of the same level of quality as did Greek potters.
This option might distantly relate to my question1 above.
But, when negated it says:
Sicilian potters who lived during the reign of the ruler did produce work of the same level of quality as did Greek potters.
This does not affect the conclusion. Also, sicilian potters are OOS for the argument.

(B) Sicilian clay that was used in the manufacture of pottery during the ruler’s reign bore little resemblance to Greek clay used to manufacture pottery at that time.
Again, This option might distantly relate to my question1 above.
But, when negated it says:
Sicilian clay that was used in the manufacture of pottery during the ruler’s reign bore no resemblance to Greek clay used to manufacture pottery at that time.
This does not affect the conclusion. Also, sicilian clay is OOS for the argument.

(C) At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were ships capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.
This might strengthen the argument. But its not an assumption. Also it speaks about large quantities of manufactured goods. But not about pottery works.
When negated it says,
At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were NO ships capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.
This does not affect the conclusion.

(D) The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was not placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.
This is correct assumption. Answers my second question above.
When negated it says:
The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.
This affects the conclusion.

(E) The occupant of the tomb was not a member of the royal family to which the Sicilian ruler belonged.
This is completely OOS.
When negated it says:
The occupant of the tomb was a member of the royal family to which the Sicilian ruler belonged.
This does not affect the conclusion.

pick D.

Hope this helps!!

How do you get the 1000 CR questions?

Only D, and C make sense here.

However, you can eliminate C based on whether ships were present there or not does not affect to the conclusion.

D makes complete sense.

sindhu b wrote:Samples from a ceramic vase found at a tomb in Sicily prove that the vase was manufactured in Greece. Since the occupant of the tomb died during the reign of a Sicilian ruler who lived 2,700 years ago, the location of the vase indicates that there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Sicilian potters who lived during the reign of the ruler did not produce work of the same level of quality as did Greek potters.
(B) Sicilian clay that was used in the manufacture of pottery during the ruler's reign bore little resemblance to Greek clay used to manufacture pottery at that time.
(C) At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were ships capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.
(D) The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was not placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.
(E) The occupant of the tomb was not a member of the royal family to which the Sicilian ruler belonged.

OA D Plz Explain

Apply "Negation test".
an option with this test should weaken the aurgument. The Conclusion is "the location of the vase indicates that there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago".

Therefore only Option D qualify after negation test.
1. quality of work is no where suggested in the conclusion.
2. Little resemblemce does not prove the conclusion.
3. Logistics is out of scope.
4. OA.
5. occupant as royal family member does not prove the conclusion.

However @Kvcpk has given a better explaination.

sindhu b wrote:Samples from a ceramic vase found at a tomb in Sicily prove that the vase was manufactured in Greece. Since the occupant of the tomb died during the reign of a Sicilian ruler who lived 2,700 years ago, the location of the vase indicates that there was trade between Sicily and Greece 2,700 years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Sicilian potters who lived during the reign of the ruler did not produce work of the same level of quality as did Greek potters.
(B) Sicilian clay that was used in the manufacture of pottery during the ruler's reign bore little resemblance to Greek clay used to manufacture pottery at that time.
(C) At the time that the occupant of the tomb was alive, there were ships capable of transporting large quantities of manufactured goods between Sicily and Greece.
(D) The vase that was found at the Sicilian tomb was not placed there many generations later by descendants of the occupant of the tomb.
(E) The occupant of the tomb was not a member of the royal family to which the Sicilian ruler belonged.

OA D Plz Explain

Dear Sindhu B do you have 1000 CR questions.Thanks