The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 to

Hello, everyone. I see some good responses in the thread already, but I thought I would take a moment to post my thoughts for the benefit of the community. Evaluate questions may seem more open-ended than, say, strengthen or weaken questions, but as always, we have to pay strict attention to what the passage tells us.

• The first sentence is purely factual, telling us when the Hyksos invaded Egypt and during which period they ruled there.
• The second sentence is short but crucial: archaeologists hypothesize that [the Hyksos] were Canaanites.
• The final line provides the support for the hypothesis: artifacts from Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, are virtually identical to artifacts from Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos' invasion.

The third line can be confusing if glossed over. There is a comparison between two "A" cities, and the proper nouns Hyksos, Egypt, and Canaan all enter the mix. Also note that the artifacts that appear virtually identical are placed within a particular timeframe, right around 1650 BCE, if we loop back to the first sentence. (I think it is safe to assume that the invasion did not last 100 years.) How about we jump into the answer choices, now that we have a firm grasp of the passage?

Everything fits here. If we trace the trading route, then we can see how the hypothesis would be affected:

1) artifacts from Ashkelon → non-Canaanite cites → Avaris may not have been a Canaanite city (anti-hypothesis)

2) artifacts from Ashkelon → Canaanite cities → Avaris was more likely a Canaanite city (pro-hypothesis)

In short, the answer choice does provide a consideration that would help to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence.

The thinking might go that if artifacts from other places besides Ashkelon were found at Avaris, then perhaps the Canaanite association would be diminished. The problem is that we are asked expressly about the evidence the archaeologists are using to back up their hypothesis. They are not pointing to artifacts that do not resemble those produced in Ashkelon. We have to make sure we are answering the question that is being asked.

Sure, a closer proximity might lead to more contact between different places, but just as we saw above, this consideration has nothing to do with the evidence the archaeologists are using to support their hypothesis. Avaris could or could not be the nearest Hyksos city, and the hypothesis could hold. (Would it make any difference if it had been the second closest, for instance?)

Read too fast, and once again, you could get into trouble. The date matters here. After 1550 BCE, the Hyksos no longer ruled Egypt, and remember, the artifacts in question are virtually identical to those produced in Ashkelon at the time of the Hyksos' invasion. What happened later does not inform a view of the hypothesis.

Like the previous answer choice, this one shifts the focus to the wrong time period. It also adds an overreaching any—any could mean one. This sort of specificity, counting the post-Hyksos'-reign artifacts, is unwarranted.

In my view, either of answer choices (D) or (E) would appear much more attractive in isolation, without the other. But back to back, they reveal a common problem, and it should be easier to eliminate the pair.

Perhaps the advice to pay attention to exactly what the passage and question say makes more sense now. As always, I would like to wish everyone good luck with their studies.

- Andrew