Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near

need help in eliminating C. I think its strengthening by saying that these goods were preserved and still no such goods were found. please help.

When you stuck in some option , you can go back to conclusion and relate with other premise given and check whether this options strengthens the argument even to a little bit or weakens or neutral tone.

In my first reading, I eliminated all options . Because B strengthens to some extend but not very prominently. I could share my opinion why I rejected C and how I came back to B.

Conclusion: the camp probably dates to no later than 1630. I stick to this point in my mind and give this statement utmost priority to decide the effect of options.

Let's see C
Meaning: 1st European good was preserved for as long as possible.
What this statement indicates? - there should be high chances that European product should be found even after destruction. But We are given fact, no product was found.
What does it indicates? - It indicates that first European good was never reached there. Hence clarifies our premise:why no European product was found.
But does this have affect on our conclusion?
With this information, that European product never reached there , Can you say that camps dates to no later than 1630? We are in open dicussion now: Say yes, product was destroyed and no traces were found, it means it strengthens the claim. But there is other possibility that you can not challenge , maybe product never reached there , then it has no effect on our conclusion. Or why not product could reach in 1700s and still destroyed.
The key point is : there is no informaitn that can make any affect on the conclusion.
hence rejected.

Lets see what B does
Ok, products were found in almost all sites except this camp site. What does it means? - It indicates that camp was not dated to late 1620s. It removes all possibilities of late 1630s, late 1700s etc. What does it mean , this camp could have been before late 1620s.
What I need to find: The camp probably dates to no later than 1630.
If you ask me : Was the task not done after 10 am.
If i reply you, it was done before 9am.
Do you get your answer that yes the task was not done after 10am.
Hence clearly strengthens.

This reasoning made me choose B.

Alternatively ,
My conclusion depends on some years.
Other option indicates nothing about years. Other options could be valid for any time; not just in late 1630s. So it was an indication for me too that B could be an answer. Reasoning helped me to choose B option.

I hope it helps.

Take a look at this post and see whether that clears it up!

VeritasKarishma Whats wrong with C? What if all European goods would have been destroyed?

We are talking about trade goods of 1600s. "Careful preservation" does not imply that had they been there, we would have found them. Whether you are careful with the goods or not, while talking about centuries, it wouldn't make much difference. Perhaps they disintegrated over the years.
But (B) clearly states that at all camp sites after 1620s, the goods have been found. It means they don't deteriorate and last long enough to be found. Hence if this camp site did have them, it is likely that at least some goods would have been found.
Hence, (B) makes much more sense than (C).

Understanding the argument -
The conclusion is The camp is probably dated no later than 1630. Meaning it no way belongs to a date after 1630. What will support it? If we know that after 1630 sites have 100% evidence of something that this site is missing.

Option Elimination -

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did. We know that traders were active in the 1620s. Let's say the good reached this site before 1620. Then what? Are we 100% sure that those goods could have survived and were not further exchanged for something else? Moreover, the author could have said that the site dates no later than the early 1620s. Yes, I agree this doesn't weaken. But at the same time, it doesn't provide a solid reason as well to say with 100% confidence that this site has to be before the 1630s. This is classic distortion.

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found. - See "all." So it means that definitely, had this been after 1630, we should have gotten some European trade goods. So it is before 1930. It may be 1620 or 1625 or before, but definitely not after 1630. ok.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction. - Another classic distortion. Does it even address the dating aspect of the argument? No.

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers. - Out of scope.

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned. - it doesn't help explain the dating aspect. Distortion.

Facts :
1. animal bones dated : between 1605 and 1755
2. Europeans trading active since 1620's
: Since no European items found, hence the area was active till 1630's

(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did. - Incorrect : No European trade goods were found

(B) At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found. - Correct : since other places with later 1620's had the European goods, hence the founded area would be active only till 1630's.

(C) The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction. - Incorrect: No impact

(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers. - Incorrect: No impact

(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned - Incorrect : Out of scope

Hi GMATNinja,
The conclusion of the argument is that the site was no later than 1630.
The reason I picked A was that, it says that the European goods would have reached before the European traders themselves. This means that the date of the European goods is probably before 1620s. Since the site contains no European goods, we can further narrow down the date to before 1620s instead of 1630s, which strengthens the argument
B says that "All other sites in late 1620s contained European goods". I eliminated this on the grounds that it does not give us any information as this is expected from the argument.
Can you let me know where my reasoning is wrong?

Thanks in advance.

That's a fair point. If (A) is true and if, for example, the European traders arrived in that area 1625, then we'd expect European trade goods to be at that site starting sometime before 1625.

But the argument still has a major flaw: what if evidence of European trade goods simply was not durable enough to last? In that case, it's possible that the European trade goods were in fact at the site and that there's simply no evidence or remains of those goods. So (A) refines the date a little bit, but it doesn't do much to actually strengthen the argument compared to what's already given in the passage.

(B) addresses the major flaw by giving us reason to believe that archaeologists would likely see evidence or remains of those goods today if there were in fact European trade goods at the site in the 1600s. So (B) is a better answer.