PrepTest 154

Incorrect. This sounds like it would be a pretty valuable site! This answer choice weakens by suggesting that archaeologists could learn something here about the former inhabitants' belongings that they can't learn anywhere else. We're looking for the opposite.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
A cynical archaeologist disputes the claim that a particular rubbish pit can tell us about the possessions of ancient people who used said rubbish pit. It's actually not that useful for figuring out what kind of stuff they had. Among other reasons, the rubbish pit has been subject to erosion, which has been destructive to the contents.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the subtle causality here: erosion has CAUSED the rubbish pit to be less useful in studying the possessions owned by these ancient people. So, we're looking for something that will strengthen the causal relationship between erosion and low value of the site. Maybe it'll affirm that exposure to erosion tends to destroy objects of significance to human civilization.

Answer Explanation:
This is exactly what we anticipated, albeit in a different form. If scavengers removed the most durable items, things like cooking pots and weapons, then only the least durable items remained to be damaged by erosion. So everything left is probably pretty messed up now.

Key Takeaway:
When dealing with a causal strengthen, don't rule out answer choices just for not directly mentioning the cause or effect you're looking for. (In this case, the correct answer doesn't use the word "erosion.") Take the time to actually understand how an answer choice could affect the causal logic in the stimulus, even if it takes one more step to get there.

Incorrect. This is an interesting tidbit about the ancient people if true, but unrelated to the relationship between erosion and low archaeological value. Erosion also removes soil, but unless we know how removing soil actually affected the value of the site, this doesn't strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. This doesn't seem relevant to whether or not we can learn anything about ancient people's possessions from their rubbish heap. The graveyard wouldn't necessarily affect the stuff on top one way or the other. Though they might want to stop digging before they get cursed, if old movies about archaeologists have any truth to them.

Incorrect. This is too weak to strengthen the argument. "Certain kinds of items" could mean only a couple of things, say hairpins and the advanced computers the aliens brought them. Sure that would mean we won't find those things in the rubbish heap, but it's not strong enough to strengthen the conclusion that the heap is overall of little value.