Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a

THE most important aspect of a strengthen or a weaken argument is to clearly identify the conclusion. If you are not sure of what the conclusion is, what are you strengthening or weakening?

This is one of those questions where finding the conclusion is not a very easy task. The question makers have created the question in such a manner that most people do not manage to identify what the conclusion actually is.

On the first read, most people think the conclusion is…



What you’ll notice is that the question makers have added a few options that seem to be weakening this “conclusion.” We’ll have a look at these when we explore the options.

When the argument is properly analysed, you realise that the actual conclusion is…



The additional information about the mice and the grains is just additional information, which very cleverly distracts us into thinking that this is an important part of the argument.

The author has concluded that the fact that felines and human were buried together has caused the archaeologist to conclude that felines were domesticated. We need to find an option that shows us that just because felines and human were buried together, we cannot conclude that the felines were domesticated.

Let’s have a look at the options…


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

The fact that grains of rice have not been found may make some people think that felines did not help in protecting stores of grain from mice. This makes it seem like felines may have been domesticated but not for protecting stores of grain from mice. This seems to weaken the “conclusion.” However, the actual conclusion has nothing to do with this. 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.

This may be true but this has no connection to the incorrect or the correct conclusion ! Eliminate!

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

This option, like Option A, may make it seem like the felines may have been domesticated but not for protecting stores of grain from mice. It seems like felines were domesticated so that they could be domestic companions. This seems to weaken the “conclusion” that felines may have been domesticated but not for protecting stores of grain from mice. However, the actual conclusion has nothing to do with this. 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.

Quite a few eliminate this option thinking that “wild animals” is out of scope. Remember! Just because an option has a word that is not mentioned or doesn’t seem to be connected to the argument does not mean that the option is irrelevant.

We all know that, in most cases, wild animals like lions or tigers or bears are not usually domesticated.

(I’m not talking of these kinda people !)



This option shows us that just because such an animal was found buried next to a human, we cannot conclude that that animal was domesticated. This effectively weakens the conclusion that the fact that felines and human were buried together does not necessarily mean that felines were domesticated. Select!


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

At the most, this option explains why the felines might have been domesticated. Eliminate!

- Nitha Jay
GMAT Verbal SME

Passage analysis
Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton.

As per an archaeologist:
Researchers digging up a burial site in Cyprus, discovered a skeleton belonging to a catlike animal near a skeleton of a human.

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.

Both skeletons were found lying at the same level under the ground.
Both were in the same state of preservation.
This indicated that the catlike animal and the human were buried together around 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.

All this indicates that catlike animals were kept as domestic pets roughly around the same time when humans started farming.
These felines would have proved useful in guarding the grain stores from mice.

Conclusion
Felines were domesticated around the time farming began, as they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.

Pre-thinking
Weaken Framework
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the conclusion
Felines were domesticated around the time farming began, as they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice.


Given that
Researchers found a feline skeleton lying beside a human skeleton in a burial site in Cyprus.
They were buried in the same sediment depth
They were in the same state of preservation.
These two facts led the researchers to believe that the two had been buried together 9,500 years ago.

Thought process

The researchers most likely have reason to believe that farming began around 9,500 years ago.
They have linked this belief to the discovery of the feline buried beside the human skeleton.

The felines are natural enemies of mice. Using this universal truth, the researchers came to the conclusion that felines must have been domesticated by the humans to destroy mice that harm stores of grain.

As per the researchers, the presence of the felines can only mean domestication of the animals.
What if the presence could be explained away in another way?

Weakener 1

What if the felines ran wild thousands of years ago and man hunted them? The skeletons could be that of a hunter and the prey.

So, if any option shows that felines were considered wild animals often hunted down by
humans, that would weaken the conclusion.

Weakener 2

What if it was a ritual to bury wild animals with the dead body of humans thousands of years ago?
If an option gives evidence to indicate the above, it will weaken the conclusion.

Answer Choice Analysis
Option A

The grain stores may have existed elsewhere in the ancient city. This option does not prove that farming had not begun at the time.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option B

This option just indicates the age of this site with this discovery being the first of its kind among others. But it does not weaken the link drawn by the researchers between feline domestication and farming.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option C

This option seems to support the domestication of felines, even though the felines are not shown hunting mice.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option D

This is in line with our pre-thinking weakener 2.
Thus, this is the correct choice.

Option E

This option assumes that the conclusion is true. And builds on that to further state that no other way of protecting grain stores existed before the felines were domesticated.
This in a remote way validates the conclusion.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

(A) Archaeologists have not found any remains of stores of grain in the immediate vicinity of the burial site. [The remains could be far from the burial site. Hence can't conclude anything]

(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. [Irrelevant]

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do
not show felines luring mice. [Paintings don't show doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.]

(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 point addresses our concern. It tells us that it is normal to observe wild animals beside humans. It may be possible that there was some epidemic & all wild animals who came to eat the humans also died due to the epidemic]
Hence D !!

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from
Mice. [We are not concerned what happened before felines were domesticated]

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.

Conclusion - Felines were domesticated around the time farming began.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the skeletons of feline and humans were found together and are of the same age.

What could weaken the argument ??
From the premise and the conculision it is evident that the author has chosen a correlation ( that the skeletons of both feline and humans were found together) and based on this he has made his conclusion. If we can see other examples of such co-relations such as skeletons of humans buried with other animals or some other co-relation then that would substancially weaken the argument.
Answer choice D does this to a great extent and hence is the correct answer choice.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the archaeologists argument?

(A) Archaeologists have not found any remains of stores of grain in the immediate vicinity of the burial site.
- This is a trap answer choice , which uses terms similar to the ones used in the argument. It is possible that the bodies at that time would have been buried at a place far away from grain stores.

(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.
- Even if the burial site is older than any other burial site , this fact does not prove anything.

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do not show felines luring mice.
- the first part of the answer here strengthens the conclusion.

(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 for the reasons stated above.

(E) Before felines were domesticated, early farmers had no effective way to protect stores of grain from Mice.
- This answer choice does not prove anything.

akhil911

Lot of effort put in to explain the argument, but I think you are still missing important aspect of argument.

Suppose (D) states that "other animals skeleton were found along with human skeleton", does it weaken our conclusion that "Domestic feline skeleton were found along with human skeleton"....Answer is obviously no.

But since (D) is stating that the those skeletons which were found along with human are actually of "Wild animals" so it weaken our argument that "felines were domesticated" in that era.

Hope it clears.

"Please hit +1 kudos, if you like this post"

So its obvious, we have to weaken the conclusion.
The conclusion is :- "Origin of agriculture and domestication of cat happened almost at the same time because may be cats were domesticated to kill rats and mice and protect the cultivated crop"
SO we have to show that cats were not domesticated when farming started. We have to cast a "shadow of doubt" on the conclusion to make it weak.

Well as most of the clever and intelligent members have pointed out that D is the correct answer.
Apart from all the valid and correct reasons that other people have pointed, I have a rather humorous and off beat explanation to suggest that D is correct.

Have anyone seen the movie Golden campus, Where every man has a soul animal, such as a cat or rabbit or etc.
Or harry potter where Magicians can conjure petronas charm and call their animals in time of distress.

May be the people of cyprus believe in that sort of stuff and some special people like Kings, queens and priest were buried with an animals that was close to their personality.
THE grave that the researcher found might belong to a young prince whose personality animal was a cat and thus it was necessary to bury a cat with him. May be cat was not a mice eating, grain protecting animal during those period. May be this cat was specially caught from a jungle. This reasoning also explains the reason why other wild animals were found in other graves. May be a king was buried with a tiger and a queen with a deer, a little girl with a dove, a guard with a wild dog, a businessman with a wolf, a lawyer with a weasel.

SO D IS THE CORRECT ANSWER because it weakens the conclusion by saying since wild animals were found in many graves, it can be safely assumed that during that time period "cat" were still considered wild. And by definition something that is wild is not domesticated.

This reasoning not completely weakens the answers, it actually decimates the conclusion and buries it six feet under.

Dear experts,
IMO option B is, in fact, strengthening the argument.

(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.

One way to break the conclusion is that, felines may have been domesticated much much earlier, eg. 18,000 yrs ago, in fact much earlier than the time farming began (9,500 yrs)

now, this option shows that, nope ! these are the oldest (substantially older than ANY OTHER) sites. so Felines were indeed domesticated (hmmm.... questionable ) around 9,500 yrs.

True, (B) does indeed eliminate a possibility that would weaken the argument.

On the other hand, (B) also tells us that there is no other evidence suggesting that felines were domesticated around 9,500. If the one in Cyprus were the oldest and the number of similar burials started to increase around that time, that would certainly help the argument.

Then again, even if (B) is true, the archaeologist’s conclusion could still be true. If the site in Cyprus is indeed the oldest, then it may have been one of the first burials of a domesticated cat.

Without more information, (B) doesn't help us very much either way.

(D) is a better answer.

GMATNinja - How does option D answer the question about the animal's domestication? is the keyword here " wild animals". I mean do we suppose that the archeologists are able to characterise it as wild based on its fossils? because the author concludes with another reasoning. please help me understand. chetan2u TommyWallach egmat

Hi...
The author talks of domestication of cat because cats are kept as pet today or for some time now..
But if he talks of wild animals , this could include fossils of say fox, tiger,lion which are not domesticated even today so they have always been wild in known history.
Domestication as on date is the very reason he differentiates in wild and pets of those time.

But having said that, in actual GMAT we should not be worried on this aspect. After all we are given to take these statements to be true. So even if it was impossible to distinguish between fossils of animals, we have to take it that researchers are able to do as it is given.

Argument:
Feline Skeleton found beside Human Skeleton --> Felines were domesticated bcoz of xyz reason

Weakness:
Option D says that there are many more burial sites with Human skeletons along side with other animals (not just feline)

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.

Passage analysis:
-Feline skeleton found near a human skeleton
-Characteristics of the burial were the same suggesting that the skeletons were buried together
-Conclusion: Felines domesticated around the time farming began when they would have been useful for protecting grain from mice

It's quite clear that this passage is quite strange...one can detect very quickly that there are several potential weak points:
e.g. What if the burial was just a coincidence?
e.g. What if animals in general were buried near humans (9500 years ago)?

There seems to be this logical leap ...somehow the author went from similar burial characteristics to felines were domesticated...that in and of itself is just plain silly. Is it plausible? Sure...we know that felines nowadays are domesticated, but to conclude that based on the fact that they were potentially buried together is borderline fallacious.

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. X
-the key words here, if we were to take this choice seriously, are 'immediate vicinity'
-does it have to be in the surrounding vicinity? Why not a little bit further out? The argument wouldn't be weakened even if this were true.

(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.
-age of the burial site has nothing to do with this. OUT.

(C) Paintings found near the burial site seem to show people keeping felines as domestic companions, but do not show felines hunting mice.
-what if the painters simply didn't want to pain cats hunting mice? That's a weird piece of art...OUT

(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, so this was part of this trend that was happening back then...cats are nothing special...

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

@VeritasPrepKarishma and MartyTargetTestPrep

While the impact of other answer choice options was clear to me, i am little skeptical about the impact of E on the argument. My question is "Is E strengthening the argument ? May be mildly or does it not have any impact at all?

My reason being , Since E says that before Feline were domesticated, farmers had no choice to protect the grains of rice from mice. My argument is that since the skeletons were found together under similar conditions , felines were domesticated to protect the grains from mice. So if earlier they had no choice to protect , E mildly increases my belief in the argument.
Thanks

Yes, (E) is a slight strengthener, because it show that farmers needed a method of protecting grain and serves to rule out the possibility that there was no reason to domesticate felines for the purpose of protecting grain.

Man & cat likely buried at same time so Felines domesticated?
Goal: Find an option that shows buried together does NOT mean domestication

Option D - refers to wild animals buried! woot woot - Got our answer!

Feline Domestications


Step 1: Identify the Question

The word weaken in the question stem indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

F skel near H skel (buried tog 9500 yrs ago)

© F domest same time as farm

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Weaken questions the correct answer is something that makes the conclusion less likely to be valid. Based on the observation of the grave, the archeologist draws a conclusion about feline domestication. What information could call this conclusion into question?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The fact that stores of grains were not found at burial sites does not mean that people were not farming. Moreover, the focus of the conclusion is about the time of feline domestication, not about the time farming began.

(B) The lack of other contemporaneous evidence does not call into question the conclusion. Other burial cites may have been destroyed or just not found yet. If an earlier burial site had been found with human and feline remains, it would call into question the conclusion because it might suggest felines were domesticated earlier.

(C) This answer actually supports the argument. It provides further evidence that people may have domesticated felines at the time of the burial. The lack of pictures of felines hunting mice does not mean the felines did not do so.

(D) CORRECT. This answer calls into question the association between the burial of a human with a feline and the fact that felines were domesticated. If humans were buried with wild animals, the feline skeleton found at the burial site may have been that of a wild feline, not a domesticated one.

(E) This answer provides some additional support for the argument; it suggests that farming would provide strong incentives for humans to domesticate felines.