adkikani wrote:
GMATNinja generis VeritasPrepKarishma GMATNinjaTwoCan you please explain where I am faltering in PoE based on below understanding:
Quote:
Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek
A fact which presents the context of argument. Few Archaeologists have excavated NA
camp.
Quote:
Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755.
These archaeologists used RD and concluded that camp dates between 1605 and 1755.
Quote:
However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Key word - However, I should be expecting a contrast.
Yes, author concludes that the camp dated before 1630 (why?)
Evidence 1: no European trade goods were found at the site, and
Evidence 2: European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Basically the author narrows down the approximation of earlier result between 1605 to 1629
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Quote:
(A) Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area beforethe European traders themselves did.
Highlighted text weakens the argument.
Quote:
(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.
Highlighted text renders this option irrelevant to my conclusion, which is about NA camp not all camps.
Quote:
(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.
Yes, a strengthener can also be an assumption. If I negate this:
The first European trade goods to reach the area would
NOT have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
This breaks my conclusion, hence hold on to this.
Quote:
(D) The first European traders in the area followed soon afterthe first European explorers.
Highlighted text weakens the conclusion.
Quote:
(E) The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
This option too weakens the conclusion.
Hi
adkikani, thanks for the post!
Let's start with choice (C):
Quote:
(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.
Choice (C) is tempting because it suggests that care would have been taken to protect European goods. But does that necessarily mean that those goods would have survived until the present day? Perhaps the European goods were items that would have disintegrated over the course of a couple hundred years. Or perhaps the Native Americans took the European goods with them when they left the camp. Or perhaps the Native Americans traded the European goods for other items.
Just because the European goods were preserved as much as possible does not necessarily mean that we would find their remains at the campsite hundreds of years later. (C) doesn't hurt the argument, but without further evidence it's hard to say whether it strengthens the argument.
Now let's come back to choice (B):
Quote:
(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.
Remember, the author's argument is based on the fact that no European trade goods were found at the site. European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward. So, according to the author, we would expect to find European goods at any campsite used after about 1630.
But this argument has a huge problem, as described in
this post:
GMATNinja wrote:
Let's say that the camp was actually used in 1650, when European traders were active in the region. Would that necessarily mean that we should find European trade goods at the site? What if any trace of those goods simply disappeared after a few hundred years? Or what if the Native Americans took those goods with them when they moved on from the camp?
Just because we didn't find any European goods at the campsite, can we reliably say that the campsite must have existed before 1630?
Yes, choice (C) refers to ALL camps, but ALL camps in the region would include Native Americans camps in the region. European goods have been found at ALL camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's. This evidence suggests that ANY camp in the region (INCLUDING Native American camps) that existed during the late 1620's or later WOULD in fact have remains of European goods. This eliminates the doubt described above and thus strengthens the argument.
The main reason why I eliminated option B was that option B says that "European goods have been found at all camps in the region that have been reliably dated
. I believe this rather narrows down the scope to only 1620s. It can very well mean that the site could have existed during the early 1700s.
close
13 Feb 2017, 15:57
