A primer on Variance Analysis

Hi Bluemaverick,

Thank you for your query.

Here’s the original argument:

The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 BC to 1550 BC by a people called Hyksos. Their origin in uncertain but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large number of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos invasion.

Let’s break down the information given in the passage:

(1) Hyksos invaded and ruled the Nile Delta of Egypt from 1650 BC to 1550 BC
(2) Avaris = Hyksos capital in Egypt
Ashkelon= major city of Canaan
(3) Excavations of Avaris have uncovered large number of artifacts that are almost identical to the artifacts produced in Ashkelon at the time of the Hyksos invasion (1650 BC-1550 BC)
(4) Conclusion (Hypothesis by archaeologists regarding origin of Hyksos) ----Hyksos were probably Canaanites

The assumption made by the archaeologists: Hyksos brought these artifacts to Avaris from Ashkelon when they invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt.

Unless the above assumption is true, the archaeologists’ conclusion will not hold.

Keeping this in mind, let’s analyse the answer choices.

A. Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 BC.

This choice is out of scope on two accounts:

a) It talks about some other artifacts and not the one with which the author is concerned
b) The time period referred to is not the same as what the author is concerned with

Since the answer choice is out of scope, the Variance Analysis will not yield any statement that will impact the conclusion of the argument. Ideally, the Variance Analysis should be done to only the contender answer choices. The logic behind this is very simple. In the exam, you will not have the time to test each answer choice on the Variance analysis. However, since you are in the initial stage of applying the Variance Analysis, one can appreciate your effort of testing each answer choice on this parameter.
Ext 1 ( your analysis) – Yes, there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 BC. ---Agree

This weakens the argument, and it talks about period before 1700BC. The argument is for 1650-1550.----Disagree

Our take on your analysis: The above statement is out of scope, as it doesn’t talk about the artifacts referred to by the archaeologists . Therefore, it will not have any impact on the conclusion. Hence, it does not weaken the conclusion.


Ext-2 ( your analysis) – No, there were no artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 BC. ----Agree

This again talks about time period outside the one discussed in the argument--- Agree

B. Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 B.C. to 1550 B.C.

Ext 1( your analysis) – Yes, Hyksos ruled other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 B.C. to 1550 B.C. ---Agree

This does not validates the argument, ------ Agree

perhaps a strengthener, if at all---- ----Disagree

Our take: This choice again talks about an area with which the author is not concerned. You are right, that an answer to this question does not validate the argument. Also, since the archaeologists mentioned in the argument are only concerned with The Nile Delta of Egypt, any information that deals with other parts of Egypt can neither strengthen nor weaken the argument. So it is NOT a strengthening statement.


Ext-2 –( your analysis) No, Hyksos did not rule other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 B.C. to 1550 B.C. ----Agree

This could be a strengthener ----Disagree

…but does not validate or invalidates if they were Canaanites. ------ Agree
Answer Choice B is out of scope since the region referred to is NOT the Nile Delta and, hence, the answer to this question will not impact the author's conclusion, which deals only with the Hyksos in the Nile Delta around 1650 BC- 1550 BC.


C. Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan.

Ext 1( your analysis) – Yes, Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan. ------ Agree

Just for the fact that it was the nearest city does not validate or invalidates that Hyksos were Canaanites. ------ Agree

Ext-2 ( your analysis) – No, Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan.

Same reasoning as above. ------ Agree



D. Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris.

Ext 1( your analysis) – Yes, Ashkelon continued to produce….Not the correct choice as the argument is not concerned with Ashkelon producing artifacts after 1550. --- Agree


Ext 2 ( your analysis) - No, Ashkelon did not continue to produce….same reasoning, not concerned with whether Ashkelon produced after 1550 or not. ------ Agree



E. Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to the artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion

Ext 1(your analysis) – Yes, many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to the artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion.---Agree

This validates that Hyksos were producing artifacts similar to those found in Ashkleon way before the invasion and carried through during the invasion as well. ----Disagree

Our analysis:
You have misinterpreted the implication of the above statement. The above statement casts a doubt on the fact that the Hyskos people were probably Canaanites. This is because if these artifacts date to well before the Hyskos invasion, then it means that probably the artifacts existed in The Nile Delta before it was invaded by the Hyskos and that the Hyskos did not bring these artifacts from Ashkelon.


The job of the correct answer choice, when subjected to Variance analysis, is that one end of the answer will weaken the conclusion drawn and the other end will support the conclusion. In this case, a positive answer to the question posed in answer choice E, weakens the conclusion. SO if a negative or a NO to question posed in answer choice E weakens the conclusion, then it is the correct choice.

Ext 2 (your analysis) - No, not many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to the artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion. .---Agree

Not sure how this invalidates the argument – my guess – the Hyksos produced artifacts perhaps during or after the invasion? ----Disagree


Ext 2 Our take – You have misinterpreted the implication of the statement we arrive at, by replying NO to question posed in answer choice E supports the answer choice. It does not invalidate the argument; instead it increases our belief in the fact that the Hyskos people probably brought in the artifacts from Ashkelon to the Nile Delta when they invaded the place. If this indeed had been the case, then the Hyskos people could have been Canaanites.



Hope this helps

---Neeti.