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]
01 Jul 2004, 09:08
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.
wow, I was really stuck between C and D. C it is as D cannot indeed be inferred.
A) what if they were not even digging at the right spot?
B) out of scope
D) the siege could have lasted 1 day, we can't infer this
E) out of scope