Q5 - Archaeologist: A large corporation has

[debbie.d.park]

I am having trouble understanding why E justifies the archaeologist's argument. To me, E seems to be totally irrelevant.

How does E relate to the stimulus? Thanks in advance!

[bbirdwell]

Well, let's take a look at the stimulus. What exactly is the conclusion? That the offer to restore the site and make it accessible to the public should be rejected.

Why? Because parts of the site contain unexamined evidence.

Our job is to find a general rule (principle) that would apply to this situation and strengthen the given conclusion.

This is what (E) does. Just trim it down to its essentials and don't let the extra language about theories distract you: "The risk of losing evidence outweighs the advantages of displaying." That's a good match to our argument, which advocates new evidence over public display of what we already have.

Notice that none of the other choices come even close.
(A) This is not about ownership. it's about display and unexamined evidence.
(B) "...only the most ancient?" So what.
(C) "Judgements about height?" Not even close!
(D) "True concern?" Nope.