aj5105 wrote:Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
This question is tempting because something confused in it. So I decide to give a try
I think B looks like the best of 5 answer choices, but it's questionable.
The reasoning of the question starts from: "...However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward."
I restate the reasoning like this:
Because:
- (A) no European trade goods were found at the site,
- (B) and European traders were active in the region BEFORE 1630 (= from the 1620's onward)
So conclude: (C) the camp probably dates FROM 1630 or AFTER (=no later than 1630).
1/ First, I think we have to discuss the meaning of "no later than" here.
Normally, "no later than 1630" = "not after 1630" (if my English understanding is not wrong)
But in this case: "no later than 1630" must = 1630 or after.
- Why? Because:
If we imagine the year of 1630 as origin 0, the time of (A) and the time of (C) must stand to the right of 0 - inclusive 0 (or the same side), and (B) stands alone to the left of 0.
---------(B)-------1630---(A)-(C)--------
I read the diagram like this: "the camp may appeared from 1630 or after --because the camp didn't have European goods --because European traders NOT THERE (after 1630)" → sounds okay!
- If the time of (C) stands to the same side the time of (B), the diagram would be read like this: "the camp may appeared from 1630 or after --because the camp didn't have European goods --because European traders THERE" → the statement is illogical → we can stop discuss.
--> So the reasoning would be as I mentioned above.
2/ Find a strengthener:
Some assumptions of the argument are:
- 1st: There was no European (E) goods that Native American camps often used left in the region after E traders stopped trading in the region.
- 2nd: Some of E goods were necessary goods that Native American camps near Dumaw Creek had to use during 1620's.
- 3rd: No other people bring E goods to the region after E traders gone.
- 4th: The evidence of E goods & E traders' activities are more reliable than the evidence of animal bones (to determine camp's date)
3/ Examine answer choices:
(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
--> A is out of scope, is neither strengthen nor weaken. We just care if E goods would be traded in the region AFTER E traders gone.
(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
--> B doesn't support "the camp probably dates FROM 1630 or AFTER". However, B weakens the argument. (it weakens the 1st assumption)
Because if E goods still remained, who assured that Native American camps hadn't used them, and the camp mentioned in the argument may be one of those using E goods remaining. --> the camp can date any time either during 1620s or after those years! If the camp had not used when it had conditions to use, the author would fail to reach the conclusion.
If the reasoning were: E goods were brought to the region after 1630, so the author concludes that a camp dates before 1630 because there is no E goods found there, it'd be understandable.
On the other hand, B would support the argument if the conclusion were "the camp probably dates DURING 1620's"
(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
--> C also weakens the argument.
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
--> D is out of scope. Who knows what time E explorers came in (no use knowledge outside the question)
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
--> E is out of scope. Nothing to deal with 3 "elements" (A-B-C).
4/ My conclusion: there is no strengthener among the answer choices.
Hypothesis: whether there are some extra words or omitted words randomly appear in the statement and change the entire picture? Example: some important words, such as: "no", "were active/were not active", "before/after", "strengthen/weaken" "onward/backward"
Note: If someone see any flaw of my reasoning/my English understanding, I'll appreciate it. I'm eager to learn from you all.
.gif)
