cledgard wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
A recent archaeological discovery in a remote region has unearthed artifacts that indicate the existence of an ancient civilization. Proponents argue that this discovery challenges existing theories about the timeline of human civilization and suggests the possibility of advanced ancient societies. Critics, however, argue that the artifacts may have been tampered with or misinterpreted, casting doubt on the validity of the claims.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument?
(A) The qualifications and expertise of the archaeologists involved in the excavation and analysis of the artifacts.
(B) The dating methods and techniques used to determine the age of the artifacts and their accuracy.
(C) The presence of similar artifacts or evidence of advanced civilizations in neighboring regions.
(D) The cultural and historical context of the remote region and its relevance to the claims.
(E) The perspectives and opinions of other experts in the field of archaeology regarding the significance of the discovery.
Unacademy Official Explanation:Answer: the correct answer is B.
This information directly addresses the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts. By understanding the dating methods and their accuracy, it can be determined if the artifacts are indeed representative of an ancient civilization or if there are potential issues with their interpretation. This consideration helps assess the reliability and credibility of the claims based on the archaeological evidence. Therefore, option B provides the most valuable information to evaluate the argument.
Option A addresses the qualifications and expertise of the archaeologists involved, it does not directly evaluate the argument or address the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts. It focuses on the expertise of the archaeologists without providing insight into the specific issues raised about the validity of the claims.
Option C addresses the presence of similar artifacts or evidence in neighboring regions, it does not directly evaluate the argument or address the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts. It focuses on the presence of similar evidence without providing information about the specific artifacts in question or their authenticity.
Option D addresses the cultural and historical context of the remote region, it does not directly evaluate the argument or address the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts. It focuses on the cultural and historical context without providing information about the specific artifacts or their validity.
Option E addresses the perspectives and opinions of other experts in the field of archaeology, it does not directly evaluate the argument or address the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts. It focuses on the opinions of other experts without providing specific information about the validity of the claims.
I disagree with the explantion of this problem. The conclusion: "Critics, however, argue that the artifacts may have been tampered with or misinterpreted". Answer B may explain why the proponents may be wrong, but it would be not because of tampering or misinterpretation, but because of the dating techniques. If the dating techniques were inaccurate, it would not mean that the artifacts were tampered or misinterpreted. Therefore, it does not affect the conclusion.
I believe answer A would be a better choice: Even though answer A does not directly evaluate the argument or address the concerns raised by critics regarding the potential tampering or misinterpretation of the artifacts, the expertise of the archaeologists is very relevant. The more qualified the arcehologists are, the more likely it is that they will not misinterpret the findings; they would also would be more likely find out if the artifacts had been tampered with.
I wolud like tha som expert check this assessment.
KarishmaBI think the question stem itself is vague.
The complete argument has the proponents' argument and the critics' argument. So which one are we going to evaluate? Not known. Official question stems are absolutely clear in what they are looking for. Even if I go ahead thinking "I will know it when I see it," both options (A) and (B) are suitable. I do not understand the distinction between direct and indirect addressing (that the official solution suggests)
(A) The qualifications and expertise of the archaeologists involved in the excavation and analysis of the artifacts.
Critics, however, argue that the artifacts may have been tampered with or misinterpreted, casting doubt on the validity of the claims.
To evaluate this, it is legitimate to ask about the credentials of the experts. After all, people handling them will 'tamper' or 'misinterpret.'
(B) The dating methods and techniques used to determine the age of the artifacts and their accuracy.
First off, I don't know what 'their accuracy' refers to. The way it is written, 'their' seems to refer to 'artifacts.' But what do we mean by the accuracy of the artefacts? If I take a step back and say that we are questioning the accuracy of the methods and techniques, this might be useful to evaluate the proponents' argument:
Proponents argue that this discovery challenges existing theories about
the timeline of human civilization and suggests the possibility of
advanced ancient societiesThe accuracy of the dating methods used is important here.
Hence, I am unable to decide which option to pick. The question stem needs to clarify which argument are we evaluating. - the proponents' or the critics'