Treasure Hunter: In general, archaeological artifacts found on public property cannot legally be privately owned. But according to centuries-old maritime law, people who risk their lives attempting to rescue a ship in peril are permitted to keep whatever cargo they can salvage. Under this rule treasure hunters clearly are entitled to keep the cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they risk their lives to save from oblivion in public waters.

Archaeologist: Not so. These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater. The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters who destroy archaeological evidence in their hurry to loot salable artifacts.

On the evidence of their statements, it can be concluded that the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree on which of the following?

(A) What constitutes an archaeological artifact
(B) In what sense, if any, an ancient shipwreck can be said to be in peril
(C) Whether treasure hunters risk their lives when they retrieve artifacts from ancient shipwrecks
(D) Whether maritime law can ever be applied to a ship that has already sunk
(E) Whether antique shipwrecks in public waters can properly be said to be on public property

Always pay close attention to the language in Critical Reasoning questions. The treasure hunter justifies his behavior by stating that "people who risk their lives attempting to rescue a ship in peril are permitted to keep whatever cargo they can salvage." Therefore, he claims, it's fine for treasure hunters to keep cargo from ancient ships. So notice there are two conditions that must be met. They must be risking their lives. And they must be rescuing a ship in peril.

The archaeologist claims that the shipwrecks aren't in any danger. In other words, they aren't in peril. (Alas, he doesn't seem to care if the treasure hunters are risking their lives.)

So they disagree about whether the ships are in danger, or "in peril."

This is captured in option B

conquistador wrote:Treasure Hunter: In general, archaeological artifacts found on public property cannot legally be privately owned. But according to centuries-old maritime law, people who risk their lives attempting to rescue a ship in peril are permitted to keep whatever cargo they can salvage. Under this rule treasure hunters clearly are entitled to keep the cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they risk their lives to save from oblivion in public waters.

Archaeologist: Not so. These shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater. The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters who destroy archaeological evidence in their hurry to loot salable artifacts.

On the evidence of their statements, it can be concluded that the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree on which of the following?

(A) What constitutes an archaeological artifact
(B) In what sense, if any, an ancient shipwreck can be said to be in peril
(C) Whether treasure hunters risk their lives when they retrieve artifacts from ancient shipwrecks
(D) Whether maritime law can ever be applied to a ship that has already sunk
(E) Whether antique shipwrecks in public waters can properly be said to be on public property

General Description: This question asks you to identify an issue over which the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree. The task, then, is a matter of determining which of the choices is a claim supported by one speaker but rejected by the other.

A. Incorrect. Whether or not shipwrecks (or anything else, for that matter) count as archaeological artifacts does not arise in the passage.

B. Correct. The treasure hunter presents a rule applying to "a ship in peril" and claims that this rule applies also to the case of treasure hunters taking cargo from ancient shipwrecks. Thus the treasure hunter is saying that ancient shipwrecks count as "ships in peril" in the sense used in "centuries-old maritime law." The archaeologist, on the other hand, disagrees with this claim. By saying "these shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries," the archaeologist shows disagreement with the claim that ancient shipwrecks are "ships in peril." By saying "The only danger they are in is from greedy treasure hunters," the archaeologist suggests a different sense in which ancient shipwrecks may be said to be in peril. Thus the treasure hunter and the archaeologist disagree over "in what sense, if any, an ancient shipwreck can be said to be- in peril."

C. Incorrect. The treasure hunter clearly believes that treasure hunters risk their lives in retrieving such artifacts, as shown by the reference in the last sentence to "cargo from ancient shipwrecks that they [i.e., treasure hunters] risk their lives to save." However, nothing the archaeologist says indicates disagreement with this claim. The archaeologist does make a claim about danger to the shipwrecks, but NOT about possible dangers to those who would retrieve their cargo. This was by far the most popular incorrect response.

D. Incorrect. The treasure hunter does bring maritime law into the discussion, but the archaeologist does not even address this issue in responding to the treasure hunter.

E. Incorrect. The treasure hunter brings into the discussion the general issue of the ownership of archaeological artifacts found on public property, but nothing the archaeologist says indicates any disagreement with the implication that antique shipwrecks can be said to be on public property.

Tips and Pitfalls: In a "point of disagreement" question, a choice that presents a claim that is supported or denied by one speaker, but about which the other speaker has made NO commitment either way, CANNOT be correct. In other words, for a response to be the correct response, it is not sufficient that the speakers might disagree about it. Limit your analysis to what is actually said; avoid the temptation to speculate about what (else) either speaker might believe.