The archaeologists conclude that
the destruction found in Kourion was caused by an earthquake near Cyprus in the year A.D. 365. Here’s how they arrive at that conclusion:
1. They found a pattern of destruction in Kourion (a city on the island of Cyprus).
2. This pattern is typically found in towns devastated by earthquakes.
3. An earthquake took place near Cyprus in A.D. 365.
4. Therefore, this earthquake is what caused the destruction of Kourion.
And the question is asking: which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the archaeologists' hypothesis?
To strengthen this argument, we'll need to rule out other causes of the same pattern of destruction or find evidence that Kourion was actually devastated in A.D. 365, not sometime before or after the earthquake.
Quote:
(A) Bronze ceremonial drinking vessels that are often found in graves dating from years preceding and following A.D. 365 were also found in several graves near Kourion.
If Kourion was devastated in A.D. 365, we wouldn’t expect to see any drinking vessels originating from after that year. Choice (A) weakens the argument, so we’ll eliminate it.
Quote:
(B) No coins minted after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion, but coins minted before that year were found in abundance.
Choice (B) presents exactly the kind of evidence we need to back the archaeologists. If they found pre-365 coinage in the debris but couldn’t find a single coin created after 365, then we’d be more inclined to believe that the earthquake in A.D. 365 did in fact devastate Kourion. Let’s keep this and continue eliminating choices.
Quote:
(C) Most modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occurred near the island in A.D. 365.
Choice (C) doesn’t give us any new information. It may strengthen the fact that an earthquake took place in this year, but doesn’t strengthen the argument that this earthquake caused the destruction seen in Kourion. Let’s eliminate choice (C).
Quote:
(D) Several small statues carved in styles current in Cyprus in the century between A.D. 300 and 400 were found in Kourion.
Choice (D) would neither strengthen nor weaken the argument, which places the destruction of Kourion in A.D. 365. If these small statues were carved between 300 and 365, choice (D) would strengthen the argument. If these small statues were carved between 365 and 400, choice (D) would weaken the argument. Since we don’t know when exactly the statues were carved, we’ll eliminate choice (D).
Quote:
(E) Stone inscriptions in a form of the Greek alphabet that was definitely used in Cyprus after A.D. 365 were found in Kourion.
This evidence weakens the argument because it presents an artifact that was created
after the year of the earthquake in A.D. 365. Let’s eliminate choice (E).
Answer choice (B) is the best option.
I understood that the answer choice needs to strengthen the idea that the earthquake in year 365 AD was the one responsible for the destruction found in the city, but it is not mentioned in the passage that the city and people did not survive at all (in other words complete destruction). No coins after 365AD could mean that they developed paper based money system or any other system of exchange that did not leave evidence for historians to relate the cause of no coins.
The idea to use the evidence of no coins found after 365AD to relate the complete destruction (not necessarily explicitly mentioned in the passage) seems to be very specific to think in short time under exam pressure. Is this question an odd one example of GMAT question or I am missing something in my approach.
Your short analysis will be very useful for me in understanding and developing my approach.