Q7 - The ruins of the prehistoric

[Gerald]

PT65, S4, Q7 (Evaluate the Support (Assumption Family).

Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the support for the archaeologists’ hypothesis?

(A) whether the traditional techniques for building reed boats were in use at the time Tiwanaku was inhabited

(B) whether green andacite stones quarried at the time Tiwanaku was inhabited were used at any sites near Copacabana

(C) whether reed boats are commonly used today on the lake

(D) whether the green andacite stones at Tiwanaku are the largest stones at the site

(E) whether the reed boat built for the experimenters is durable enough to remain usable for several years

(A) is correct

Here we’re asked a question that has cropped up on recent exams: evaluate the support. Instead of being given specific information that will allow us to strengthen or weaken the argument, we’re asked about a category of information, the answer to which would help us determine whether the argument is any good. We need a good understanding of the core and the gap for these questions, so we’ll start by finding the conclusion.

In this case, the argument tells us we’re meant to evaluate the support for a hypothesis. The hypothesis, then, is our conclusion. (FYI, when hypotheses appear, they are often the conclusion). Our conclusion, then, is that stones (weighing up to 40 tons and quarried 90 km away) were brought to Tiwanaku by reed boat. The support offered was an experiment that transported a 9-ton stone using local materials and traditional techniques.

Reed boats constructed from local materials and traditional techniques can transport 9-ton stone --> Stones weighing up to 40 tons probably transported the 90 km by reed boat

Gaps: There are a few here. Sure, we can transport 9-ton stones, but what about 40-ton stones? Also, just because materials are available today, does that mean they were available way back then? Finally, did these "traditional" techniques originate around or before the construction of the prehistoric city?

We’re asked for a category of information that would help us determine whether the experiment is supports the hypothesis. Anything addressing one of these gaps would be helpful.

(B) Out of scope. Who cares whether the green stones were also used around the quarry site? The question is whether they could have been transported by the same technique as used in the experiment. This answer does not help us evaluate whether the experimental support is any good. Eliminate.

(C) Out of scope. So what if reed boats are common today? Does that tell us whether they were used in prehistoric times to transport enormous stones? No. Eliminate.

(D) Out of scope. Who cares if the green stones are the largest stones? Does this mean they could or could not be transported by reed boat? No. Eliminate.

(E) Tempting, if we assume the ancients demanded extended warranties on their rock transportation vehicles. But again, this information is irrelevant. We don’t need the boats to last several years. Wouldn’t a six-month boat allow the ancients to transport stones, for, I don’t know, six months? Eliminate.

That leaves (A): whether the traditional techniques for building reed boats were in use at the time Tiwanaku was inhabited

This addresses one of the gaps we saw earlier: whether "traditional" techniques were those in use in prehistoric times. My family has a "tradition" of cooking a Thanksgiving meal on Memorial Day. We’ve only been doing it for ten years, not 2,000. So, "traditional" is kind of ambiguous. If we knew the answer to (A)’s question, we would know whether or not the ancients could have built a boat similar to the one used in the experiment. Therefore, the answer is relevant to evaluating how well the experiment supports the hypothesis. Circle this bad boy.

[Djjustin818]

I was between A and D and I chose D only because I interpreted "largest" stones to be "heaviest" stones. Is this too much of an interpretation to make?

[maryadkins]

Yes! We don't know that the largest stones were the heaviest stones. Furthermore, the whole argument is about the green andacite stones at Tiwanaku ("Archaeologists hypothesize that the stones," as in THESE stones). We don't need to know that the green andacite stones there were the largest at the site, or even the heaviest; we're only talking about them to begin with, not other stones.

[LawrenceR550]

B is out of scope but it’s really a “lack of understanding” mistake. The stimulus tells us that the stones were quarried at Copacabana. If you didn’t take that as definitively true, then B starts to make sense. If they weren’t ‘used,’ it might imply that they weren’t ever there, and if the stones weren’t ever in Copacabana while Tiwanaku was inhabited, and if they weren’t ever in Copacabana while Tiwanaku was inhabited, then it can’t follow that that’s where the stones came from.