From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary

We begin critical reasoning problems by reading the question. In this case we are asked to undermine the conclusion drawn from the evidence.

What is that conclusion? It is: "The settlement is considerably older."

Why do we think so? Because a piece of building timber that has been unearthed is older than the pottery and statuary.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that the timber is a better indicator of the real age of the settlement than the pottery and statuary are. We will be looking to attack this assumption in order to weaken the conclusion.

Answer choice (A), the credited response, tells us that there is evidence to suggest that the timber in question actually came from a different, earlier settlement. This directly attacks the assumption.

Answer choice (B) suggests that the pottery analyzed comes from different parts of the site. This does not directly tell us whether the pottery or the timber is the best indicator of settlement age.

Answer choice (C) tells us that the tests devised to determine the age of the pottery are more recent than those used to determine the age of the timber. However, this does not give us any indication that one or the other of the tests is inaccurate.

Answer choice (D) tells us that more pottery has been found than timber. Again, this does not indicate whether the age of the pottery is more relevant to determining the age of the settlement than that of the timber.

Answer choice (E) suggests that the pottery is like older pottery. Even if this is true and if the pottery is actually older than tests indicate, this does not weaken the conclusion. If anything, it strengthens it.