Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and [#permalink]
16 Feb 2005, 22:05
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.
The force of the evidence cited above is most seriously weakened if which of the following is true?
(A) Gerbils, small animals long native to the area, dig large burrows into which objects can fall when the burrows collapse.
(B) Pottery of types 1 and 2, found in the lower level, was used in the cities from which, according to the legend, the besieging forces came.
(C) Several pieces of stone from a lower-layer wall have been found incorporated into the remains of a building in the middle layer.
(D) Both the middle and the lower layer show evidence of large-scale destruction of habitations by fire.
(E) Bronze ax heads of a type used at the time of the siege were found in the lower level of excavation.
if( A) happens then the object found on the top layer may very well endup in the bottom later. This is basically tampering of the location of the evidence.
(A) seriously weakens the credibility of the evidence.
My choice would be A.
You are trying to weaken the fact that the evidence from a latter period of time was found at the botton layer than in the layer above that bottom layer.
If you consider A, it shows that there are some animals which typically dig burrows, and in that process, the ones from the latter period which are in the top layer or at the top of the ground might fall into these burrows and would contradict the fact.
This question sounds very tricky for me. The question is: What is the evidence for? The people are searching the location of a sieged and destructed city. They discovered a place where some later pieces in the middle section were found and no later pieces in the lower section were found. What does this evidence tell us? That this place is not where the sieged and destructed city was located (because the later piece in middle level)? Or that this place IS where the sieged and destructed city was located (because no later pieces were found in the lower level)? The reason why this question is unclear is that it did not say what position the evidence was used to support.
Different choice of the postion would mean different choice of your answer.
in principal, the oldest pieces should be in the lowest level and the other way around. E) says that a "younger" piece was found in the lower level and the discovery of a older piece was found above it. that means that the piece in the middle layer is not so old as it was interpreted.