Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a

Question

Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago. This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the archaeologist’s argument?

(A) Archaeologists have not found any remains of stores of grain in the immediate vicinity of the burial site.

(B) The burial site in Cyprus is substantially older than any other known burial site in which a feline skeleton and a human skeleton appear to have been buried together.

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do not show felines hunting mice.

(D) In Cyprus, there are many burial sites dating from around 9,500 years ago in which the remains of wild animals appear to have been buried alongside human remains.

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from mice.

ID - CR07304

woohoo921 · Answer

egmat or GMATNinja I do not understand how the argument implicitly assumes that farming in Cyprus began around 9,500 years ago. The author is first saying that basically the feline and human were buried 9,500 years ago. Then the following sentence says, "This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began". The farming comes out of left field in my view. Perhaps I am reading this too literally. Is the author explicitly telling us that it was 9,500 years ago when farming began when they say "this shows that"... providing additional context for what happened 9,500 years ago = when farming began? I am just very confused

My second question... the OG says for the correct choice that "If many wild animals were buried alongside humans in Cyprus around 9,500 years ago, then the feline skeleton is just as likely to be that of a wild animal than that of a domesticated cat." To confirm my understanding, the correct answer is basically saying although it is a cat, it could be a WILD cat and not necessarily a DOMESTICATED cat?

GMATNinja · Answer

There's a big difference between "implicitly assuming" something and "explicitly telling us" something. If you assume something, you DON'T explicitly state that thing outright in your argument.

That's what the author does here. He/she lays out a bunch of information about a buried cat, and then suddenly leaps to a conclusion that links cats to farming.

So you're right, that bit does come out of left field! And it's ok to note that there's a gap in the argument, but don't let that confuse you -- it just means that the argument isn't a perfect one. Your job is just to note how the author made his/her case, and then weaken that case using one of the answer choices.

To answer your second question: yup, that's right. The author concludes that cats were  domesticated  at a certain time because of the burial situation. (D) blows a big hole in that argument by destroying the link between the burial and the likelihood that the cat was domesticated.

I hope that helps!

Dinesh654 · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep   mgmat   egmat   GMATNinja

Hello experts, 
please help me with this one,

I chose A over D.
In D, remains of many other wild animals have been found to buried alonside humans, but we dont know they were domesticated or not?
they were all domesticated and hence can strenghten the argument, or they all were not, in that case it weakens; what if some were domesticated and some were not?

Therefore there is a broad range of ambiguity is taking place here!

I know in A they can still be domesticated even if grain stores haven't found.
but it is weakening it upto some degree?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Wild animals by definition are not domesticated. So, actually, there's no ambiguity to the implications of (D).

Sneha2021 · Answer

Hi Experts, I was confused between B & D. Please help me to reject B.

GMATNinja 
 MartyTargetTestPrep

Premise: Remains of feline and human were found buried together around 9500 years ago.
Conclusion: Cats were domesticated 
(B) The burial site in Cyprus is substantially older than any other known burial site in which a feline skeleton and a human skeleton appear to have been buried together.
(D) In Cyprus, there are many burial sites dating from around 9,500 years ago in which the remains of wild animals appear to have been buried alongside human remains.
 
D says that there are many burial sites where humans were buried with wild animals, this fact strengthens the argument that may be cats were buried alongside humans. So the premise is strengthen that such burial sites exist. No impact on the conclusion through this statement.

B says that the oldest burial site where cats and humans found buried together was in Cyprus. So no other such burial site found. This one particular site can't be an evidence to conclude that cats were domesticated.

Thanks for your time!

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

We can't strengthen the premise that burial sites in which cats were buried alongside humans exist. It's already stated as fact that such burial sites were found.

On the other hand, what this choice does do is weaken the connection between (1) an animal being buried alongside a human and (2) that animal being domesticated. If wild animals were buried with humans, then maybe cats were not domesticated but rather wild like the other animals buried alongside humans.

I see what you're getting at here, but the truth is that the argument does work even though this one site is the oldest site. Yes, the evidence would be stronger if there were more such sites, but the fact that cats were buried alongside humans even at one site is reason to believe that cats were domesticated at that time.

In fact, if you think about it, (B) doesn't really add any new information. The argument is based on the evidence found at this one site. Now, (B) says that this site is the only site, OK, but the argument was based on only what was found at this site. So, (B) changes nothing about this argument.

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Understanding the Passage

Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton.  - A skeleton of a human and a skeleton of a cat were found nearby in the excavation of a burial site.

Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, - 
 
 The two skeletons—the feline skeleton and the human skeleton—were both in the same sediment, at the same depth, and were equally well-preserved. These three things are the same. As I read this, I can sense that if these three things are the same, it seems that they were put together.

I have taken a pause in the middle of the sentence because the ideas are not so comfortable for me. It's from a subject area that is not very familiar to me. So even though I have read only a part of the sentence, I take a pause and try to understand what's going on.

suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago.  -

This part builds upon the previous one. The fact that those three things were the same for both skeletons suggests that the feline and human were buried together.

This is in line with my expectation, so I move quickly through it because it’s not something I have to assimilate; I've already made sense of it. The sentence also adds the timeline: about 9,500 years ago. This is a new piece of information.

Importantly, the author is clearly delineating the  facts  (the three similarities) from the  implication  derived from them (that they were buried together). On that basis, an  implication  is derived that they were buried together. Given this, there could be a  gap  between these two; they could have all three similarities but still may not have been buried together.

This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, -

This is the  conclusion  that the author arrives at. The fact that they were buried together  shows  that felines were domesticated. It is an interesting jump. Just by looking at a human and a feline buried together, the author is concluding that felines were domesticated.

Why can't it be the case that they were not domesticated and still be buried together? So that's a  gap  or a  vulnerability  in the argument.

Also, the author talks about the time when they were domesticated, saying it was "when farming began." Nowhere in the passage are we given any information about the time when farming began. We know that these were buried together 9,500 years ago, but did farming also begin at that time? We have no idea. So this is another  gap  in the argument. What if farming began 20,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago?

when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.  -

This is presented as additional information about the time when farming began. The information is that at that time, felines would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice. This also suggests another reason to expect that felines were domesticated—because they would have been useful.

Again, there are several problems in using this  support  to argue that felines were domesticated. We don't know whether there were  mice  at that time, whether there was  grain farming  going on, or whether there were any  stores of grain . All of these are not given; all of these are  gaps .

Also, it's important to realize the way this has been phrased:  "would have been useful."  The author communicates that he doesn't know this, whether they were useful. He's just making a claim that they would have been useful for this purpose.

The Gaps:
 
There are several gaps in the argument:

1. We’re not given when the farming began. Did farming begin 9500 years ago? We don’t know. Perhaps, farming began 15000 years ago. 
2. Even if farming began 9500 years ago, we don’t know whether it was about production of grains.
3. Even if farming were about the production of grains, we don’t know whether there was a mice problem at that time.
4. Even if there were mice problem at that time, we don’t know whether people knew that felines could help solve the problem.
5. Even if people knew that felines could help solve the problem of mice, they could have used non-domesticated felines for the purpose.
6. Besides, it is possible that wild felines and humans were buried together at that time. In such a case, the finding of a feline skeleton may not mean that felines were domesticated.

Option Evaluation

(A) Archaeologists have not found any remains of stores of grain in the immediate vicinity of the burial site.
    Incorrect-

To understand the correct reasoning for evaluating this option, let's first look at its opposite:

If archaeologists have found some remains of stores of grain, then it indicates that there were, in fact, stores of grain at that time. Given that the passage does not explicitly state this, finding such evidence would  strengthen  the  conclusion . This is because it increases our belief that there were stores of grain, and thus increases our belief that felines could have served the purpose mentioned in the argument.

Now let's return to the original option:

This option is the exact opposite of a statement we just identified as a strengthener. When you state the exact opposite of something that is  strengthening  an argument, you are not making a  neutral  statement; you are  weakening  the argument. At the very least, you are eliminating a potential strengthener. This is what this option does. It is a  mild weakener .

This option is a very  mild weakener  indeed. Why? Because not finding the remains of grain stores in the  exact vicinity of the burial site  is not a strong indication that there were no stores of grain anywhere. I wouldn't necessarily expect stores of grain to be located right next to burial sites. So, the absence of evidence in that specific location doesn't strongly indicate that the stores were absent altogether. It has a mild impact, but it does have a negative impact.

Comparing the Magnitude of Weakening  
 
To better understand the mildness of this option, let's consider two stronger hypothetical variations.

This option is a far better  weakener  than the original. Because it says that the remains of stores of grain have not been found  anywhere in Cyprus , we now have a much stronger indication that there were no stores of grain in Cyprus at that time. Therefore, felines could not have served the purpose of protecting such stores, which  weakens the conclusion .

This option is an even better  weakener . It states directly that there is positive evidence indicating the  absence  of grain stores. While option A1 pointed to the  absence of evidence  (of grain stores), option A2 points to the  presence of evidence  (against grain stores).

So, looking at the original option A and the variations A1 and A2, we can see that all three are  weakening  the argument, but their  magnitude of weakening  is very different. The original option is, by comparison, quite mild.

(B)The burial site in Cyprus is substantially older than any other known burial site in which a feline skeleton and a human skeleton appear to have been buried together.
    Incorrect-

This option compares the age of the burial site in Cyprus with the age of other known sites where feline and human skeletons have been found buried together. It is saying that this particular site in Cyprus is the oldest one.

To understand the impact of this option, let's consider its opposite. Let's say this burial site was  not  the oldest, and there were other, older sites where feline and human skeletons had been found together. In that case, could we arrive at a conclusion about the time of domestication by looking at this particular, newer burial site in Cyprus? No, right? The conclusion about the  timing  of domestication would be based on the oldest burial site, not this one.

Therefore, the opposite of option (B) would  weaken  the argument.

Since the opposite of the option is a weakener, the original option (B)  strengthens  the argument. By stating that this site in Cyprus is the oldest known example of such a burial, it makes it more plausible that this site represents the earliest evidence of domestication. This makes us believe more in the  conclusion  that the timing of domestication matches the age of this specific burial site.

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do not show felines hunting mice.
    Incorrect-   
  
If the option had just stated, "Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions," it would have  strengthened  the argument. This is because it provides direct evidence of a close, domesticated relationship between humans and felines. 
 
If the option had just stated, "Paintings found near the burial site do not show felines hunting mice," this part, in isolation, would very  mildly weaken  the argument. It casts a slight doubt on the specific  reason  for domestication proposed by the archaeologist (protecting grain from mice).
 
 Since the option contains both of these parts, it includes a strengthener and a very mild weakener. The evidence for domestication ("domestic companions") is direct and significant, while the lack of evidence for hunting mice is minor. Therefore, the overall effect of the option is that it is a  slight strengthener  for the argument.

(D) In Cyprus, there are many burial sites dating from around 9,500 years ago in which the remains of wild animals appear to have been buried alongside human remains. 
   Correct-

If it was a common practice in Cyprus around 9,500 years ago to bury  wild animals  alongside humans, then the specific evidence of a feline skeleton being found with a human skeleton loses its significance. It becomes very difficult to use this evidence to argue that the feline was  domesticated . 
 
This option provides a strong alternative explanation: the feline could have been a wild animal, buried alongside the human for the same reasons other wild animals were, as part of a common custom or ritual. This severely  weakens  the leap in logic from a joint burial to the specific conclusion of domestication.

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from mice.
   Incorrect-

As with some previous options, it's easier to understand the impact here by first looking at the opposite statement.

The opposite of this option is:

If early farmers already had an effective way to protect their grain from mice, then it's hard to argue that felines were domesticated at the time farming began by saying that felines could have been used to protect grain from mice. If the farmers didn't really need felines to protect their grain stores, then we have less belief in the argument that felines were domesticated.

Therefore, the opposite of option (E)  weakens  the argument.

Since the opposite of the option is a weakener, the original option (E)  strengthens  the argument. By stating that farmers had  no other effective way  to protect their grain, it reinforces the archaeologist's argument, making it more likely that felines were domesticated to fill this critical need.

walterwhite756 · Answer

I get it that answer should be D but C also attacks one of the main point of final conclusion i.e.

So is it right to say that C also weakens the conclusion but D does the job better?

Vegita · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja  and  MartyTargetTestPrep

I wanted to point out something that I don't see being discussed. The argument of the passage is not whether felines were domesticated or not. The argument is whether "felines were domesticated around the time farming began..". So shouldn't the weakener suggest that felines were not domesticated around the time farming began?

Regardless if they were domesticated or not. If felines were domesticated before or after the time farming began wouldn't that weaken the argument?

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from mice.

Option E suggests that the domestication of felines did happen, however, farming happened before the domestication of felines.

Please let share your thoughts on this.

GMATNinja · Answer

As you say, if we could show that felines were NOT domesticated around the time that farming began, that certainly would weaken the argument. However, that's not the only way we could weaken the argument.

Generally speaking, it's better not to try to "pre-think" a weakener before we analyze the answer choices. Rather, it's better to take each answer choice on its own merits, and see how it affects the argument.

So how does (E) affect the argument?

Well, (E) does suggest that early farmers did not have access to domestic felines. So this weakens the idea that farming and domestication of felines happened at EXACTLY the same time.

But keep in mind, we're only trying to weaken the idea the domestication of felines happened at "around the time farming began." How much leeway does that give us? It's hard to say exactly. But regardless, showing that farming and domestication of felines didn't happen at EXACTLY the same time won't necessarily weaken the idea that they didn't happen AROUND the same time.

From another angle -- answer choice (E) only talks about "early farmers," so maybe it was only really early on that farmers didn't have domesticated felines? And if they didn't have an effective way to ward off mice, that might have given them motivation to domesticate cats in the first place (to protect their stores of grain). So in a way, (E) is actually a mild strengthener of the argument.

Compare (E) to (D):

This seriously weakens the argument. If wild animals were buried alongside humans, we'd have no reason to think the feline skeleton from the burial site was a  domesticated  feline. And if it wasn't a domesticated feline, the argument would fall apart. Because if we don't even have evidence about when felines were domesticated, we can't say they were domesticated "around the time" that farming began.

Notice that while it's possible to argue about (E), answer choice (D) unambiguously weakens the argument. For that reason, (E) is wrong and (D) is correct.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

The archaeologist's argument claims two things:

That felines were domesticated when farming began
 
 And that the felines would have been useful in protecting grain

In (C) the paintings  don't support  the second point. But, that doesn't mean they  weaken   the claim either. It's possible that the felines  did  protect the grain stores, but that  it wasn't painted.

So, (C) doesn't weaken the conclusion.

I hope that helps!

sachi-in · Answer

The main premise is : Human feline buried together 6500 years ago.
conclusion is : Felines were domesticated ages ago ( when perhaps they were need to hunt mice )

Emphasis is on  Domestication  not  Domesticated for hunting mouse.

Options A, B, E can easily be eliminated leaving out C, D

If emphasis would have been on Cat domesticated for hunting mouse maybe we could have chosen C
But we want to weaken the fact that maybe Cats were simply not domesticated it was just a wild animal buried with the human, hence option D

Iwillget770 · Answer

Hello  AnthonyRitz ,
Please vet my below approach.

What is the Conclusion of the Argument ?
 This shows that felines were   domesticated     around the time farming began  , when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.

So, I we need to weaken this argument.

I found two GAPS or two ways to weaken this . 
 1/ Ok , they were domesticated but may be not at the time farming began. May be wayyyy before farming began ie 12000 years ago. So any answer choice that tells us that felins have been domesticated since 15000 years then it will weaken the argument. 
 2/ The finding of skeletons of feline and human was just a mere coincidence / practice...... then it will weaken the argument.

What I am trying to convey is :- 
We can weaken the argument by saying felins were not domesticed. They were just buried with the human skeleton as a practice
or 
we can weaken by saying that even though they were domesticed they have been domesticed > 9500 years before.

Thanks

AnthonyRitz · Answer

Iwillget770

This seems generally fine. You nailed the conclusion. I think the main gap was whether the nearby burial establishes domestication, but your note about not knowing when farming began is also something I considered. If an answer showed that farming didn't begin until later, then I do think that could be a good weakener.

So hey, good job!

PReciSioN · Answer

Hi experts, - MartyMurray , AjiteshArun , avigutman I had some thoughts about this question. 1) What is the exact conclusion of the argument ? I feel that the conclusion is limited to the bolded part" T his shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began , when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice". The second part of the sentence is an additional premise ( by suggesting a benefit for cats to be domesticated when farming began, the conclusion that cats would have been domesticated around the time farming began makes more sense.) 2) "This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began" - In this sentence, people (including official explanation) have considered the usage of the word domesticated as a verb. When we use it like a verb in this sentence, we mean that the domestication happened around the same time farming began. Not earlier, nor later. So in this case, answers which suggest domestication happened earlier than farming began would indeed weaken the conclusion. BUT what if we consider that the word "Domesticated" was used as an adjective. In this case, the conclusion would mean that by the time farming began, felines were already domesticated. i.e. they were domesticated (verb) either during the same timeframe or even much earlier. In this case, an answer suggesting that they were domesticated much before farming began would NOT weaken the conclusion even though an answer suggesting they were domesticated after farming began would, ofcourse, weaken the conclusion. Am I right in my reasoning? Thanks!

MartyMurray · Answer

That's a reasonable take on those statements.
 
Your reasoning about the effect of "domesticated" being an adjective makes sense.

At the same time, it's pretty clear that "domestictated" serves as a verb, and not an adjective, in this context because of the use of the prepositional phrase " around  the time farming began."

After all, it's not logical that felines were "domesticated" on an ongoing basis "around the time." "Around the time" means at a certain point close to that point in time. It would not make sense to say they were domesticated on an ongoing basis using "around the time."

To convey that they were domesticated on an ongoing basis, in other words, for "domesticated" to be an adjective, the sentence would have to use different wording, such as " at  the time." "At the time" would work logically with "domesticated" to convey that, at the time farming began, felines were domesticated animals.

PReciSioN · Answer

Ahhh Yes, that makes sense Marty! Thank you!!

VasundharaS · Answer

Why not C? Conf b/w C and D and chose C

MartyMurray · Answer

Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago. This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is that, since a feline and human appear to have been buried together about 9,500 years ago, felines were domesticated at the time farming began.

One aspect of the argument that we might notice is that the reasoning jumps from the fact that a feline appears to have been buried with a human about 9,500 years ago to the conclusion that felines were domesticated at some time in the past, presumably before or about 9,500 years ago. So, there's a gap in the argument between the evidence, which is about burial, and the conclusion, which is about domestication.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the archaeologist’s argument?

This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the premise is true, the conclusion may not be.

(A) Archaeologists have not found any remains of stores of grain in the immediate vicinity of the burial site.

This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.

After all, the conclusion is not that the burial site itself had something to do with grain stores. Rather, the main point of the argument is that the burial of a feline with a human indicates that felines were domesticated, and the point about protecting grain is just additional information that is supported by the nature of felines, mice, and farming.

In short, regardless of whether grain was stored in the vicinity of the burial site, felines could have been domesticated around the time when farming began.

Eliminate.

(B) The burial site in Cyprus is substantially older than any other known burial site in which a feline skeleton and a human skeleton appear to have been buried together.

The fact that the site is the oldest known burial site in which a feline and human appear to have been buried together doesn't mean that felines were not domesticated at the time of the burial.

After all the point of the argument appears to be that such a burial indicates that the buried feline was domesticated. So, regardless of whether other such burial sites of that age were found, if even one was found, it indicates that at least one feline was domesticated 9,500 years ago, meaning that domestication of felines had begun at that time.

Eliminate.

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do not show felines hunting mice.

The essence of the conclusion of the argument is that "felines were domesticated around the time farming began."

The conclusion is not that felines protected stores of grain from mice.

It's true that "protecting stores of grain from mice" is mentioned in the conclusion, but it's not an essential part of the conclusion. It's mentioned only as part of the description of "when" felines were domesticated.

So, in saying, "paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions," this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the conclusion.

Eliminate.

(D) In Cyprus, there are many burial sites dating from around 9,500 years ago in which the remains of wild animals appear to have been buried alongside human remains.

This choice is interesting.

The argument uses the fact that a feline was buried next to a human to support the conclusion that felines were domesticated at a particular time. In other words, it assumes that the burial of an animal with a human means the animal was domesticated.

This choice undermines the force of the evidence by indicating that that assumption may be incorrect.

After all, if, "in Cyprus, ... the remains of wild animals appear to have been buried alongside human remains," then the fact that an animal was buried next to someone doesn't mean that the animal was domesticated. It could have been wild.

So, the feline found buried next to a human could have been wild as well.

Thus, this choice indicates that, even though a feline was found buried next to a human, there's reason to doubt that felines were domesticated at the time of the burial.

So, this choice weakens the argument.

Keep.

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from mice.

This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.

After all, it doesn't indicate when felines were domesticated. It only describes what occurred "before" felines were domesticated.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

egmat · Answer

I can see why this question might be tricky – weaken questions in Critical Reasoning require you to really understand what assumptions the author is making. Let me walk you through this one.

Here's how to approach this:

Step 1: Identify the Conclusion

The archaeologist concludes that felines were domesticated around 9,500 years ago when farming began, specifically because they were useful for protecting grain stores from mice.

Step 2: Spot the Evidence

What's the basis for this claim? They found a cat skeleton and human skeleton buried together at the same depth and preservation level. The archaeologist interprets this as: "Hey, they were buried together intentionally, so the cat must have been domesticated!"

Step 3: Find the Hidden Assumption

Here's the critical leap you need to see: The argument assumes that  finding a cat buried with a human means the cat was domesticated . This is a big assumption! What if there are other reasons a cat might be buried with a human that have nothing to do with domestication?

Step 4: Attack the Assumption

Now let's look at the answer choices through this lens:

Choice D  hits the nail on the head. If many burial sites in Cyprus from that time period show  wild animals  buried with humans, then this practice wasn't special to domesticated animals. It was just a cultural burial practice! This completely breaks the link between "buried together" and "domesticated for grain protection." The cat could have been wild, just like all those other animals.

Why the other choices don't work:

Choice A:  Not finding grain stores at this particular burial site doesn't weaken the argument. Burial sites aren't necessarily near storage areas, and grain doesn't always preserve well archaeologically.
 
  Choice B:  Being the oldest known example actually strengthens the timeline rather than weakening it.
 
  Choice C:  Paintings showing cats as companions but not hunting mice doesn't rule out that they also hunted mice – artists might just focus on the social aspects.
 
  Choice E:  This strengthens the argument by giving farmers even more reason to domesticate cats!

The key insight:  Notice how Choice D doesn't deny that the cat and human were buried together – it accepts that fact but gives you an alternative explanation that has nothing to do with domestication. That's exactly what a strong weakener does.

Answer: D

While this explanation covers the core reasoning, there's a lot more to mastering weaken questions systematically. You can check out the  complete framework and detailed solution on Neuron by e-GMAT  to understand how to identify assumptions in any CR argument and predict what will weaken them  before  looking at answer choices. You'll also find comprehensive explanations for  hundreds of other official GMAT questions on Neuron , complete with practice quizzes and detailed analytics to target your specific weaknesses.

Hope this helps! 🎯

Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards