Archaeologist: A large corporation

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   The ownership of archaeological sites should not be under the control

   This rule doesn't clearly apply to our situation, since we were never told that the large corporation would have control over ownership of the site. We were only told that they offered to provide funding to restore the site and open it up to the public (they'll probably just get a shiny plaque in the visitors' center).

   2%
2. B

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Any restoration of an archaeological site should represent only the most ancient period of

   This isn't a rule that provides a way of concluding, - shouldn't take their money - shouldn't restore the site - shouldn't open it up to the public It would only allow us to conclude that a restoration shouldn't represent a certain time period. Also, it sounded like this restoration would be representing the most ancient period of the site's history ("it will conform to the best current theories about how it appeared at the height of the ancient civilization"). Since this answer choice aligns with the pitch for the restoration, it doesn't provide the author with a mechanism to say, "According to this, we shouldn't do this restoration".

   4%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   No one should make judgments about what constitutes the height of

   This is only a rule that would let us scold someone for attempting to decide what the height of a certain civilization was. It doesn't do anything to connect Premise language (whether or not there's unexamined evidence) to Conclusion language (whether or not we should reject the corporation's offer).

   2%
4. D

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   Only those with a true concern for an archaeological site’s history should be involved in the

   This is potentially a rule that allows us to conclude, "Thus the corporation should not be involved in the restoration of the site". But in order to use the rule, we would have to know that the large corporation does not have a true concern for the site's history. Not only did the author never say anything like that as her premise, but we actually have background information that sounds like the large corporation does care (they want to essentially donate money so that the public can behold the best current theories about this ancient civilization).

   2%
5. E

   Correct90% picked this

   The risk of losing evidence relevant to possible future theories should outweigh any advantages of displaying the results

   Why this is right

   This answer has a surprising Weighing Tradeoffs feel, but it is the only answer that uses Premise language (unexamined evidence). We are definitely adding in some common sense to think that this author is worried that we will be risking losing this unexamined evidence if we do the restoration (because it's tainted or walled-off during the restoration / construction process). Since we have a lot to gain from accepting the corporation's offer (yay, we've got money to restore it and let the public come learn about this ancient civilization), if we're arguing that we should reject this offer then we must be assuming that the negatives outweigh the positives. This answer choice establishes that the potential bad outweighs the potential good, which helps us to get closer to that conclusion of "okay, we should reject this offer".

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

   90%