PrepTest 141

Incorrect. First, the other objects found don't speak to the purpose of another unless they establish a pattern, and this answer doesn't state that they establish a pattern (e.g., they were all religious objects). Second, even if this answer suggested that the item in question wasn't a weapon, the argument already ruled that possibility out, and even if it hadn't, this answer doing so would strengthen the argument for an alternative purpose.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
An object with a head/open mouth was in a tomb. It's size and open mouth suggest it was probably a speaking staff (a communal object indicating who can speak at a meeting).

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here concludes that a certain object served a certain function, but it does so on very limited evidence and without exploring all potential alternative functions. While it does rule out one alternative (it's "too small" to be a weapon), there are still other alternative functions this object could serve. Any answer that raises the probability that it serves one of these other functions, or provides evidence against it being used as a speaking staff, would serve to weaken the object. And don't forget to note the information we learn about speaking staffs—they're communal objects that indicate who can speak at a small assembly. It's possible the correct answer will use some of that information.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus establishes that speaking staffs were communal objects. If these objects were normally passed to the next generation, then they normally wouldn't have been buried in a tomb. Since this object was buried in a tomb, this answer provides evidence that it wasn't probably a speaking staff, thus weakening the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When a question goes out of its way to describe or explain something, it's usually doing so in order to set up a few connections or details that can then be used as a connection in the answer choices. Here, noting the description of the speaking staff as a "communal object" was key to connecting the correct answer to the argument.

Incorrect. Without knowing if rare artistry was common primarily in speaking staffs, this answer choice is out of scope.

Incorrect. While this answer requires a leap, if anything, making that leap would lead to an answer that strengthens the argument, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to connect the two purposes explored in the stimulus, but the argument is neither strengthened or weakened by that.