It would not be surprising

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: “conclusive”6% picked this

   It is cited as conclusive evidence for the claim that trade links between China and the Middle East were

   Too strong to call this conclusive evidence, when the conclusion’s wording is only as strong as “it wouldn’t be surprising”. Conclusive evidence means that it 100% proves the conclusion. If you have conclusive evidence, then the conclusion follows logically / is properly drawn / is properly inferred.

   6%
2. B

   Not Subsidiary Conclusion9% picked this

   It is an intermediate conclusion made plausible by the description of the terrain along which the

   It is not a subsidiary conclusion, because no support is provided for it. Why should we believe that a migration from Africa / Middle East to China occurred a million years ago? The argument doesn’t provide any support for that idea, so it’s impossible to regard that claim as a conclusion.

   9%
3. C

   Correct82% picked this

   It is offered as evidence in support of the claim that trade routes between China and the West could easily have been established

   Why this is right

   It’s a premise (i.e. evidence/support) and the conclusion is the first sentence. This is a bit of a weird meaning match, but when we say that something "would not be surprising", we mean "it would very much match expectations", and thus it's a pretty fair match for saying "it something that could easily be true". Suppose we know that Tina attends law school at Yale. We might say, "It would not be surprising if Tina had a really high LSAT score. It would match my expectations if I found out that Tina had a high LSAT score. It could easily be true that Tina had a high LSAT score."

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

   82%
4. D

   Unmentioned / Out of Scope: “preceded”1% picked this

   It is offered as evidence against the claim that trade routes between China and Africa preceded those eventually established between

   The author never tries to differentiate a China ? Africa route from a China ? Middle East one. When our author brings up Africa and the Middle East, they are lumped together into the same timeframe.

   1%
5. E

   Not The Conclusion2% picked this

   It is the main conclusion that the argument attempts to establish about intercourse between China

   The conclusion is the first sentence, not this claim. Any time two claims are joined by “and”, neither one of them is going to be the conclusion.

   2%