Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 17

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
A: We got all the info we need from the mosaics at Zeugma, and their absence will confuse future researchers, so we should have left them in the area that was flooded.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument concludes a normative statement ("should have been left there"), and such conclusions need premises establishing the conditions under which that statement can be made. So we'll need to find an answer that justifies when something should be left in their original location.

And what conditions are those? Well, in this case, there are two. The first is that the current archaeologists have all the information they need from the mosaics. The second is that future archaeologists might be confused by the lack of mosaics in the ancient city. The correct answer, then, should provide evidence that under either (or both) of these conditions, the mosaics should have been left behind. And since this is a strengthen question, it could do so directly, or by ruling out an alternative consideration—some other condition that might suggest that moving the mosaics was proper.

Answer Explanation:
While this answer doesn't completely fill the gap between the premises and conclusion, it does rule out other considerations that could lead the conclusion to not hold. The Archaeologist (unsurprisingly) focuses on archaeological considerations in reaching her conclusion that the mosaics should have been left in their original location. If non-archaeological considerations are not relevant, then the Archaeologist's argument focusing on those considerations is strengthened.

Key Takeaway:
Conclusions that feature a "should/ought" statement generally have correct answers establishing that the premises raised to support it are relevant to making that normative statement. While not always direct, the correct answer should highlight that the author brings up relevant considerations.

Incorrect. Without connecting flooding to the removal of archaeological artifacts, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Without noting that these materials aren't readily apparent in the new location, this answer doesn't provide a reason to leave them behind.

Incorrect. If anything, this undercuts the Archaeologists reasoning by suggesting that one of the prime considerations she raises isn't a concern.

Incorrect. Environmental impacts are out of the scope of the Archaeologist's argument, which focuses on archaeological considerations.