From the tenth century

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Description1% picked this

   denying the relevance of an

   The author does not invoke or deny an analogy. The Inuit and Norse are presented as two real groups living in the same actual place at the same actual time — that is a direct counterexample, not an analogy. There is no analogy whose relevance is being denied.

   1%
2. B

   Correct87% picked this

   producing evidence that is inconsistent with the claim

   Why this is right

   This is the move exactly. The opposed claim is that Greenland became too cold for human habitation. The author produces a fact that is inconsistent with that claim — the Inuit, also humans, lived in Greenland at the same time and continued to thrive. If Greenland had become uninhabitable, the Inuit should not have thrived. The Inuit's survival is the inconsistent evidence.

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   87%
3. C

   Bad Description11% picked this

   presenting an alternative explanation that purports to account for more of

   The author does not present an alternative explanation for what happened to the Norse. She simply argues the temperature explanation cannot be right. No replacement theory — about disease, conflict, economic decline, or anything else — is offered. The argument's aim is purely negative: knock down the existing explanation.

   11%
4. D

   Bad Description1% picked this

   citing a general rule that undermines the claim

   The author does not cite any general rule. She offers a specific historical fact — the Inuit thrived in Greenland during the same period. That is a particular counterexample, not a generalization about how cold weather, human survival, or any other category works.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Description0% picked this

   redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the

   The author does not redefine any term. Words like "temperature drop," "Norse," "Greenland," and "thrive" carry their ordinary meanings throughout. The argument relies on factual evidence about the Inuit, not on shifting definitions.

   0%