Q2 - Archaeologist: For 2,000 years the ancient Sumerians

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Sumerian civilization depended on irrigation for agriculture. When irrigation became toxic, agriculture could no longer support the Sumerians, and their civilization collapsed. Modern civilizations that depend on irrigation will likely suffer the same fate.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a comparative argument (the word 'similar' is a tipoff). In order to weaken the comparison, we need a relevant distinction between the Sumerian civilization and modern civilizations that depend on irrigation.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) We're looking for a weakener, but this answer strengthens, since it reinforces the idea that if irrigation becomes toxic, modern civilization will collapse.

(B) This doesn't really relate to whether modern civilizations will collapse as a result of irrigation practices, since it refers to other reasons Sumerian civilization would have collapsed if not for the toxic salt buildup. If anything, it's pushing us in the wrong direction by providing more reasons that a civilization might collapse - it certainly doesn't weaken the argument.

(C) This is exactly what we're looking for: an explanation for why the fate that befell the Sumerians will not befall modern civilizations. If the modern irrigation techniques don't lead to toxic salt buildups, agriculture will still be able to support modern civilization.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion of the argument is about the subset of modern civilizations that use irrigation for agriculture, so we're not concerned with what will happen to the other modern civilizations.

(E) This is tempting. If the Sumerian societies already had toxic salt buildups, then maybe that exacerbated the damage from the irrigation techniques they used. If modern civilizations didn't have this initial disadvantage, perhaps they wouldn't suffer the same fate. But ultimately, if the buildup of salt in the soil is toxic, eventually that will lead modern civilizations relying on the same irrigation techniques to the same fate - it just might take them a little longer if the levels of toxic salt were lower to begin with.

Takeaway/Pattern:
In Weaken questions, approach the answer with a clear idea (broadly) of what will weaken; otherwise it's easy to fall into the trap of choosing a strengthener. In comparative arguments, it's all about finding a way to distinguish the two compared elements.

#officialexplanation

[LolaC289]

Wanting to dig this even deeper.

So if instead, answer choice B said, "however, the collapse of Sumerian civilization is not caused by its reliance on irrigation but because of its continuous warfare(or whatever reasons unrelated to the use of irrigation)." Will this be a good weakener? (I think it will be because it cuts off the causal link the analogy relies on. Am I right?)

I want to make sure the reason why answer choice B is wrong, is due to the fact that, while it indicated there may be other reasons caused the Sumerian civilization's collapse, it addressed nothing about whether the heavy reliance on irrigation is a cause or not, so it did not cut off the causal link in the analogy and thus the analogy/conclusion still holds.

[ShannonM90]

I really wanted to pick C, but the word "many" threw me off. "Many" doesn't mean most. Many could be an insignificant number of modern farmers that would have no effect on civilization.