The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. b

E

(A) Whether there were some afritifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C. - Doesnt rule out the hypothesis
(B) Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C. Out of Scope
(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan. Out of Scope
(D) Wheter Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris Doesnt rule out the hypothesis
(E) Wheter many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion..Hmm ..maybe


Telllllll meeeee the oa plzzzzzz

I went with E but POE but I don't really get how it connects to the conclusion. Is it cause we need to know if those artifacts were dated before the invasion and refute the option of having them settled there after the invasion thereby weakening the evidence given in the passage?

Would someone kindly explain this one?
Kudos will be given

Cheers

IMO E.

In evaluate arguments ALWYS question the evidence.in reponse to the correct answer it might be YES or NO which incase might undermine or strengthen the conclusion.

Coming to this question again.All choices A,B,C and D are out of scope for me.

E is correct.
If you consider this choice as correct(YES) it undermines and if not(NO) then strengthens the conclusion.This choice actually challenges the evidence.Hope it helps

-h

If the answer to E is yes, is the conclusion really weakened? Identical artifacts were found in Avaris (already mentioned in the hypothesis), if they were dated long ago before the invasion, it means someone else brought them to Avaris. But does it prove that Hyksos is not from Ashkelon/Canaan? Hyksos might have brought nothing with him during invasion, no new artifact came during his rule, someone else brought them long before Hyksos, so premise stays.
So for YES to E, you get 2 kinds of results :/

Note the question stem:

"In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence..."

You have to evaluate the strength of the archaeologist's evidence. What is the archaeologist's evidence?
It is -> "In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon"

The archaeologist is using the similarity of the artefacts as evidence. What if these artefacts were present already in Egypt (as implied by 'yes' to E)? Then the evidence goes for a toss. Then, there is nothing linking Hyksos to Canaan. Hyksos could still be from Canaan but the evidence cited has failed. That is what the question asked.
Hence (E) is correct.

The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos.
Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites.
In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C..............1700 BC is before 1650 BC i.e., year of invasion and finding things in their seeming absence unlike those in Ashkelon does not give any strong information.

(B) Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C.........whether they ruled Nile delta or not is our concern. their rule in other parts does not matter to our evaluation.

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan................if city is nearest then there is possibility of migration or invasion but if it is not nearest and is nearer still it is possible for invasion.

(D) Wheter Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris................what someone did after 1550 BC indicates that there is a chance of imitation/inspiration or cannons presence. This cannot evaluate the conclusion.

(E) Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion.............if yes, then Hyksos cannot be Canaanites and if no, then Hyksos can be Canaanites.

The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether there were some afritifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C.:
INCORRECT as we are not talikng about the artifacts those are unlike those produced in Ashkelon (OUT OF SCOPE)

(B) Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C.
INCORRECT ( OUT OF SCOPE)
(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan
INCORRECT ( OUT OF SCOPE)
(D) Wheter Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris
INCORRECT Doesn't matter if the production continued or not coz the hypothesis tells about the source / origin. Not about the after math.
(E) Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion.
CORRECT If Yes thn Hypothesis is wrong coz the similar artifacts were produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion. SO we cant relate the artifacts to the origin of Hyksos. SO Hypothesis is invalid

The correct answer should be E.

(A) Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C. - Here the argument is not concerned whether the artifacts found Ashkelon were unlike those in Avaris

(B) Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C. - Ruling doesn't help in evaluating the argument of whether artifacts were produced during the duration or not.

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan - Again this is out of scope.

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris - We want validate whether Hykos ruled between 1550 to 1650 BC, hence again this not supportive.

(E) Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion - Yes because if such artifacts were produced before the time period i.e. 1550 BC to 1650 BC that would not help us in deciding whether it were the said duration or not. Hence this is the correct Answer

GMATNinja, Bunuel, could you please provide reasons on the basis of which A should be eliminated?

I chose A originally due to the following rationale:
There are some artifacts in Avaris that are unlike those produced in Ashkelon. Since the are some artifacts that are not similar, it may not be correct to conclude that Hyksos are Canaanites based on the similarity of artifacts.

GMATNinja, Bunuel, could you please provide reasons on the basis of which A should be eliminated?

I chose A originally due to the following rationale:
There are some artifacts in Avaris that are unlike those produced in Ashkelon. Since the are some artifacts that are not similar, it may not be correct to conclude that Hyksos are Canaanites based on the similarity of artifacts.
(The only reason why I think A should be ruled out is that 1700 is outside of 1650-1500 period.).

The question asks us to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, so take another look at that evidence: "the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos invasion."

Because "large numbers" of artifacts are virtually identical, the archeologists believe that the Hyksos were originally Canaanites.

Notice that "large numbers" of artifacts doesn't mean ALL artifacts -- it's totally possible that SOME artifacts from Avaris matched those from Ashkelon, while others did not. The presence of some matching artifcats is enough for the archeologists to reach their conclusion.

So, will (A) help us evaluate the force of the evidence?
(A) would tell us whether SOME artifacts from before the Hyksos invasion didn't match those produced in Ashkelon.

This really doesn't give us much info at all. Even if we determined that SOME artifacts didn't match before the invasion, it's still possible that other pre-invasion artifacts DID match. This gap is closed by (E), which would be helpful to evaluate the argument.

And again, the archeologists don't necessarily think that ALL artifacts in the Hyksos period matched anyway -- so even if we knew the answer to the question raised in (A), it wouldn't help us compare what happened before and during that period.

For these reasons, (A) isn't the most useful option to help us evaluate the evidence. Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

If many of the artifacts found at Avaris, which are identical to those produced in Ashkelon, date to well before the Hyksos invasion (before 1650 B.C.), it would weaken the hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites. This is because it suggests that the cultural similarities between Avaris and Ashkelon might have existed before the Hyksos arrived in Egypt, and the artifacts' presence might be due to earlier cultural interactions between the regions. On the other hand, if the artifacts are predominantly from the Hyksos period (1650 to 1550 B.C.), it would provide stronger support for the hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites.

Hi, appreciate some help here please. E might be the answer but only if it is interpreted in a particular way, that is, “date well before the invasion” means the artifacts found at Avaris were already exist there before the invasion. However, this answer option clearly can be read a different way, which is that these artifacts were made in Ashkelon before the invasion then brought into Avaris at the same time as the invasion. If the latter interpretation is true, then yes/bo to E doesn’t have different effects on the evaluation?

The Nile Delta of Egypt was invaded and ruled from 1650 to 1550 B.C. by a people called Hyksos. Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites. In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, a major city of Canaan at the time of the Hyksos invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether there were some artifacts found at Avaris that were unlike those produced in Ashkelon but that date to before 1700 B.C.

(B) Whether the Hyksos ruled any other part of Egypt besides the Nile Delta in the period from 1650 to 1550 B.C.

(C) Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

(D) Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avaris

(E) Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion

Hello, people! Let’s get into this.

The passage tells us about how the Nile area was invaded and ruled for 100 years by a certain group whose identity we’re not really sure about. How certain archaeologists think they may be Canaanites because excavations of the capital in Egypt of this group back then reveal a lot of artifacts that are pretty much the same as stuff made in a major city of Canaan at the time of invasion.

We’re asked to look for something that helps us evaluate how powerful the archaeologist’s evidence is.

(E) Whether many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon date to well before the Hyksos invasion

This is the answer. If, for example, we were to find out that many of the pre-invasion artifacts in Avaris WERE NOT SIMILAR to those made in Ashkelon, that would STRENGTHEN the theory that Canaanites were Hyksos. And why, after an invasion of Canaanites, a lot of artifacts similar to those made in a major Canaan city have been found in Avaris.

Answering choice (E) certainly wouldn't prove anything, but we aren't looking for proof. All we need is something that would help us evaluate the force of the archaeologists' evidence.

If the answer to (E) is "no" (meaning that many of the artifacts found at Avaris that are similar to artifacts produced in Ashkelon DO NOT date to well before the Hyksos invasion), the author's evidence and argument are strengthened.

Would that prove that the author is right? No. You could still come up with a scenario that is consistent with the evidence even if the Hyksos were NOT Canaanites. For example, maybe a different group of people brought some new technology to both Canaan and Avaris around the time of the invasion.

If the answer to (E) is "yes" (meaning that the artifacts DO date to well before the invasion), that hurts the evidence and the argument. Does that prove that the author is wrong? Nope. Again, you can come up with a scenario (like yours) in which the Hyksos were still Canaanites, even though the evidence has been weakened.

In short, we aren't trying to prove or disprove the argument. We're simply trying to strengthen or weaken the evidence, and answering (E) would be the MOST useful in that respect.

I hope that helps!