Q22

[andrewbenlevine]

Hi there, I chose B originally then came around to E during blind review. Would you please provide a proper explanation?

[andrewgong01]

Hi there, I chose B originally then came around to E during blind review. Would you please provide a proper explanation?

Going back to P2 we see that the argument is that there are certain evidence that supports the resource procurement model; however, OTHER evidence suggest a non economic cause (see lines 24-25). This means the analogy we want to make as a prephase is along the lines of 'evidence exists out there that can support either of the two theories'

A) Essentially this is one has circumstantial evidence whereas the other has direct evidence; however, in P2 we do not learn about which side has the more direct evidence; hence scope and wrong.

B) Close because it does not make a judgement on which evidence is better and it is saying there is evidence out there that supports both side. However, this is wrong because it is saying it is the SAME evidence whereas P2 says it is different evidence. I would keep "B" though on first pass because it is not until "E" we see a similar answer choice that says it is DIFFEerent evidence.

C) This choice lacks two sides where it is not saying the defendant can be guilty or innocent. This choice does not really offer an alternative explanation as it simply deduces that if one lacks circumstantial evidence then one lacks direct evidence


D) This is not an issue of credibility / ethos as Choice D suggests. Like A, we make no value judgement on which evidence is better, more direct, or, in this case, more credible.

E) Good match. We learn that there is evidence out there that lends credence to two different theories (guilty and innocent). More importantly, unlike B, this says it is a different piece of evidence where one evidence is for and the other evidence is against a particular theory to support a guilty or innocent verdict.


In summary, the key distinction between E and B was that one was using the same evidence whereas the other was using a different evidence. On a more subtle note, E also calls it "circumstantial evidence" which is a closer match to P1 where the author takes issues with circumstantial evidence, albeit it was circumstantial for archaeological evidence and not ethnographic evidence. B, on the other hand, calls it direct evidence, the 'opposite' of circumstantial evidence.


^^ That's how I approached it earlier this weekend where I was down to B and E and then examined the distinction between B and E ( same vs different evidence) and then went to the passage to see which distinction was correct