Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time
[#permalink]
11 Mar 2024, 11:21
Excavation in City Y found ten ships that all sank at the same time in the city’s harbor, in one sudden event in approximately A.D. 800. One possible explanation for the sinking is a tsunami, caused by a strong earthquake from a fault under the sea about fifteen miles away. However, it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships, since, if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
it is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships
The support for the conclusion is the following:
if an earthquake had been responsible, there would also have been major damage to the city’s walls and buildings—but there apparently was no such major damage, otherwise we would have discovered records from that time mentioning major building repairs
We see that the argument proceeds in the following way:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage --> No earthquake --> It is more likely that a powerful storm sank the ships.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will be an assumption on which the argument depends in making any of the three steps from evidence to conclusion outlined above.
A. There is evidence that the fault in question had produced tsunamis earlier in City Y’s history.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends
After all, if the fault had produced tsunamis earlier, then we have at least some reason to believe that the fault produced a tsunami that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
B. Some record-keeping practices existed in City Y around A.D. 800.
This choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
After all, as we saw above, the argument takes the following step:
No records of major building repairs --> No major damage
So, what if this choice were not true and no record-keeping practices existed at the time? In that case, absence of records would not indicate that there wasn't major damage. After all, in that case, there would not have been records regardless of how much damage there was. So, if this choice isn't true, the argument doesn't work.
Thus, for the argument to work this choice must be true.
Keep.
C. City Y’s harbor offered relatively good protection for ships from the effects of a storm.
If anything, this choice weakens the argument.
After all, if this choice is true, then we have reason to believe that the ships were not sunk by a storm.
Eliminate.
D. City Y was wealthy enough to have carried out repair work fairly quickly after an earthquake.
This choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, the argument doesn't require it to be the case that repair work was carried out quickly. After all, records of major repairs could have been found even if repairs took years or decades.
Eliminate.
E. If a powerful storm had sunk the ships, there would have been major damage to walls and buildings in the city, but not as much as an earthquake would have caused.
This choice weakens the argument rather than states an assumption on which it depends.
After all, if a storm would have caused major damage, then the fact indicated by the passage that no records of major repairs were discovered would indicate that there was not a storm that sank the ships.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B