tpr-becky wrote:Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - Conclusion that the mosaics were created by traveling artisans because they depict animal that did not live in the region.so we need a fact that says the only way to know these animals is to travel
A. The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area. We don't know anything about the stones so this doesn't say anything, the artisans could have either imported the stones or made the art in Sepphoris.
B. There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native. This only says that all the animals are not from the same place but we don't know how they could know about the animals.
C. No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city. There is nothing special to sepphoris, but this doesn't tell us where the artisans came from or how they know about these animals..
D. All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species. This doesn't help at all - when and where were they known?
E. There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. if there were a common reertory then you didn't really need to travel to know these animals which you need to know for the argument - therefore this is the answer.