From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have

Here a little bit of pre- thinking can help ...argument here assumes that the sample of timber discovered later might not be used from the earlier period maybe that was 100 years old from that 1000bc period and was actually preserved from the older period
option A does the same it tells that the timber part was actually salvaged from the earlier period or was the relic of much older period.
so, this clearly weakens the argument.
ways to weaken the argument
1) strengthen the objection
2) weaken the premise
3) weaken the assumption ( BEST)

From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?


Pre-thinking

The argument talks about the way a settlement was dated. Pottery initially was the evidence used to draw the conclusion according to which the settlement dated at 1000 BC. But the timber recently found dates way earlier and hence the settlement is older per the author.

Now let's find the assumption here.

Falsification scenario: What if the timber used was imported from and older settlement/population? In such case the argument breaks.

Assumption: The timber was not imported from an older settlement



POE:


(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement
In line with our pre-thought assumption

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site
Irrelevant

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber
Does the time when a device is built an indicator of accuracy? NO. Hence incorrect

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber
irrelevant

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.
This option is a strengthener

Argument - Broken pieces were analyzed --> archaeologists estimate that this particular settlement to which the pieces belong was established around 1000 BC.
Other pieces of timber were found that were older than the previous pieces
Conclusion - This settlement was established much earlier

(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement
- This means that there was another settlement before the current. The current settlement used the timber from the older settlement - Settlement is of same age, just the timber is older.
- Correct

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site
- the argument that relates the age is about timber. Age of pieces of pottery does not affect
- Wrong

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber
If could be the case that the tests for determining age of timber are more accurate than the those for pottery.
- Wrong

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber
- Irrelevant

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.
- This actually strengthens the argument.
- Wrong

Why a is more better than c?
We have not much information regarding the same in the paragraph

Posted from my mobile device

A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement
- Consider that the current settlement, settlement A, in the study arrived at the location on 19th Dec 2019. We need to show that settlement arrived before 19th Dec 2019, say on 19th Jan 2019. There they decided to set up their tents and other accessories. Before that settlement settled, there was another settlement B, that used to live here from 19th Dec 2017 to 19th Dec 2018. Settlement A, used the timber left behind by settlement B. This shows that the settlement A still arrived at the same date and the analysis of archaeologists is correct.

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber
We are making a big assumption that more the recent the tests better the accuracy.
The tests used to determine age of timber and of potter can be different. Say test A - for timber and test B - for pottery. Consider that the use of timber was developed many many years before mankind discovered pottery. In such a case, the tests of timber could have developed to such an extent that the tests can not develop any more further. So the accuracy of timber tests = 90% while that of pottery tests can still be only 50%.
We cannot judge the tests.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.