Excavations on the now uninhabited isle of Kelton

Hi Ankit546

I'd imagine that you're trying to differentiate between a) and c), as the other 3 weaken the argument. I agree with carcass above, and he / she uses the same logic that I did.

When I see two possible answers for strengthen questions, I look at a couple of other elements:

1) How tightly is the answer bound to strengthen the argument? In c) above the wording suggests that it strengthens the argument by talking about eruptions in the correct timeframe. But it is not bound to strengthen the argument; it could be that the eruptions where not related to any events on the island so in that sense it adds nothing (particularly if you consider that there are already signs of volcanic activity in the region). In a) the final scenario (i.e. argument + answer) gives evidence of volcanic activity and a very precise time, both in the correct region.

2) What are the elements of the conclusion that needs proving / strengthening? The conclusion is that a village was destroyed by a volcano in 160BC. The argument supplies evidence for the destruction of the village by volcanic ash but gives nothing for the time (160BC) of the eruption, or its location. Answer c) talks about volcanic activity which is attractive but not necessary, the time (which is necessary) but not the location. Answer a) gives the time and the location. It doesn't give the method of destruction, but this is ok because the argument already contains this evidence.

Hope that helps

B.