Explanation-Egyptians and Maya both built pyramids ----> often taken as evidence of an early historical link.
-But these buildings have important differences in design and function (Egyptian = tombs, Mayan = temples).
Conclusion: There was no such link between Old- and New-World civilizations earlier than documented.
Flaw: The archaeologist is saying: because there are differences in design and function, the pyramids cannot be evidence of a historical link but that is too strong or exeggeration.
Differences in use/design could still coexist with some earlier common origin or influence (or independent invention). The archeologist is treating
“ differences in design and function ” as proof that there is no link whatsoever, but that’s ignoring the possibility that structures could be borrowed and adapted to new uses, or that only the general idea was transmitted, not the exact function.
The archaeologist is presuming that no other evidence could show a link despite these differences or more precisely, dismissing the possibility of a link based solely on one point of dissimilarity, ignoring other possible similarities or indirect cultural transmission.
Looking at the options:
(A) The archeologist has just reject a piece of evidence. Incorrect.
(B) No emotions here, Hence incorrect.
(C) No! The premises don’t simply restate the conclusion, they offer reasoning (althoug it is flawed).
(D) No! This is not the central flaw; function difference is clear.
(E) Yes! The argument says the pyramids’ differences “show conclusively there was no link” this is dismissing all other possible evidence that could suggest a link.
Answer: E