Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 1 · Question 14

Incorrect. The author concludes that it "would not be surprising" to discover that trade links were formed before 200BC, which is a far cry from claiming that it's been "conclusive[ly]" proven.

Incorrect. The description of the terrain supports the idea that the Great Silk Road was an ideal trade route, not that migration happened between the Middle East and Africa at a certain time.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
The Silk Road's qualities made it attractive not only as a trade route from China to the West, but also to the Middle East and Africa. Since migration to China happened from those areas a million+ years ago, trade could very well have started between China and the West earlier than the currently believed 200BC.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts with a statement of opinion—it would "not be surprising" to find out that a current belief is wrong. As a statement of opinion on a current belief, this is likely the main point of the argument.

It's also followed by an "After all" statement, which indicates it serves as support for the preceding statement. And the following clause (after this very long premise) is connected with the linker "and," highlighting that it serves the same role in the argument, so it's another premise.

The statement in question is that last clause, so we're looking for an answer stating that it's one of two premises supporting a conclusion that it wouldn't be surprising to find out that a common view is wrong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the role of the statement in question—a premise supporting the conclusion that it wouldn't be surprising to find the trade routes between the West and China formed much earlier than currently believed.

Key Takeaway:
Structural keywords can be extremely helpful in determining the role of a statement in Argument Structure questions. Lean on them as much as you do the logic/flow of the argument itself. In fact, they can be useful in helping you to parse an argument that you don't understand!

Incorrect. The argument never establishes a relative timeline for the formation of trade routes between China and Africa, and China and the Middle East. Rather, it lumps those two together in the timeline.

Incorrect. The opening statement—the author's opinion of a current belief—is the main point, and the structural keywords highlight the statement in question as supporting it.