In 1893, an excavation led by Wilhelm

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no other1% picked this

   In 1893, scholars knew of no other ancient city that could

   The author doesn't need to believe that in 1893 there not a single other contender city for Troy. Just because the one discovered by Wilhelm is the only one mentioned doesn't mean we get to act like it was the only one being considered by scholars.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: provides zero clues2% picked this

   The Iliad does not provide any clues about the specific location

   This has the lovable ruling out "not / no" that so many correct Necessary Assumption answers have. If we negate it, does it weaken to say, "Hey, author -- you know the Iliad does provide some clues about the specific location of Troy." No, that doesn't weaken or strengthen. Until we know whether those clues corroborate or undermine the city that Wilhelm found, we have no idea of clues in the book strengthens or weakens the idea that this city was Troy.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: found no evidence8% picked this

   Dörpfeld’s team found no evidence in the city they excavated that a siege

   This has the lovable ruling out "not / no" that so many correct Necessary Assumption answers have. If we negate it, does it weaken to say, "Hey, author -- you know Wilhelm did find some evidence of a siege there." At first, yes, that does seem to weaken. But it doesn't in reality. After all, the author isn't denying that the city Wilhelm found was ever involved in a war. She's only saying it wasn't involved in any ten year war (too small) and thus wouldn't be a good contender for being Troy. She could happily agree that, "Sure, Wilhelm found some evidence that this city was at some point under siege. But Wilhelm didn't find evidence that this city was under a ten year siege, and with good reason, since a city this small couldn't handle that long a siege."

   8%
4. D

   Too Strong: many Weakens2% picked this

   The city excavated by Dörpfeld’s team had many features that scholars of the time

   This is tempting since we would presume it's probably the case, if we were thinking about probably led up to Dorpfeld concluding that this city was Troy. But it's not a necessary idea for the author. If we negate this and say, "The city did not have many features that scholars believed Troy had", that would actually strengthen the author's argument that this city was not Troy.

   2%
5. E

   Correct87% picked this

   The Iliad accurately represents the duration of the

   Why this is right

   If we negate this, we can say, "Yo, author --- I know the Iliad said it was a ten year war, and that's why you're disqualifying this city from contention, but the Iliad did not accurately represent the duration of the war. In reality, it was only a couple years long, and so a city this small could have withstood a siege of that length. And thus this city could be Troy, the site of the war." The author is treating a detail from the Iliad as though it's a historical fact: "Since 'we know' that the war was 10 years, and since this city is too small for a ten year war, this city can't be the site of the war." But we don't know the war was 10 years. That's just a detail from an epic poem. Who said it's accurate or even intended to be truthful?

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

   87%