PrepTest 142

Incorrect. Without knowing if they attempted to use the method from the hypothesis, it's impossible to know how this answer relates to the argument.

Incorrect. In raising the possibility that this method was developed only after the Parthenon was built, this (if anything) weakens the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Question Ð How did the Parthenon's architects make identical columns?
Hypothesis Ð They followed a scale drawing, like one found at the temple at Didyma.

Answer Anticipation:
The Archaeologist's hypothesis is that the Parthenon's method matches the one carved into a stone at the temple at Didyma. However, there's no evidence for this other than that this drawing exists and that it suggests a method for making columns with matching widths. As such, anything that connects the drawing at Didyma to what was done at the Parthenon would work.

Answer Explanation:
If scale drawings like the one at Didyma were commonly used, then it increases the probability that one like it was used for the Parthenon, thus strengthening the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When a technique is meant to explain how something was built or accomplished, there are generally two relevant considerations. First, does the technique work? Second, were the people who built or accomplished whatever is being discussed aware of it? Short of both answers being, "Yes," any hypothesis bringing up the technique is going to fall short.

Incorrect. First, this answer highlights a difference, suggesting that maybe a different method was used to build the Parthenon. Second, height isn't relevant—it's the width that drives the question posed at the beginning of the stimulus.

Incorrect. Without knowing what techniques experienced stonemasons commonly used, there's no way to tie this to the method suggested by the carving in the stone at the temple at Didyma.